User talk:Netscott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the garden.
The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian

Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.


3rr Islam and slavery[edit]

My actions weren't reversions rather at each stage recaptioning or re-citing photos as suggested or demanded by you. Once I'd address those specified reasons for your NPOV-tag I detagged. On that page we have a policy that an NPOV tag will not sit unless it is backed up, fairly promptly, by POV complaint specifications on talk. Also, we take down the tag after the complaint has been considered and addressed and/or when the discussion has subsided.DavidYork71 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done editing on Islam and slavery for today[edit]

I'm done editing on the article David York but as I stipulated on your talk page the soapboxery you are engaging in villifying Islam is unacceptable. (Netscott) 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. If you have problems with edits, be specific. You have not justified this rhetoric. "This article is farcical nonsense that in its current state is nothing but original research." That is false. There may be some OR involving pictures at present, but the text is all cited. I think you know that. Arrow740 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is one of the best-and-most-comprehensively-cited articles I've seen. It has had to be with all the past whining and warring about every little nuance introduced .. and God forbid that it may somehow bear a pic demonstrating what it means to be a slave under the scheme of Islamic law, past or present.DavidYork71 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. The article is so riddled with original research right now (particularly surrounding the images) that it is a veritable farce. (Netscott) 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you what part of the text of the article you object to with regards to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arrow740 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
He just did that. The intro is a work in progress and needs a lot of work, I agree. Arrow740 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen you complain when it's Muslims doing the POV pushing. That notwithstanding, you are free to edit, remove, or tag OR. Arrow740 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of trying to correct an article that is severely out of accord with Wikipedia policy when I'm just reverted? I will not revert back and forth further over such nonsense but instead I'll try to bring the problem to the community's attention so that more eyes can have a look at the original research based soapboxing going on here. (Netscott) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems with the pictures but I think you two have made progess today. Arrow740 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, Can you please check this out: [1]

Thanks very much --Aminz 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm through with this discussion for now... I've got to step away from this for a bit and possibly work on other things (like building an encyclopedia). No more reverting, no more attempts for now at trying to correct an article that everyone else save David York agrees is wrong. You're welcome to put a Wikilink to this talk there if you'd like however. Thanks. (Netscott) 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will. The reason I asked you to comment is that Arrow is claiming that you have said something contrary to what I have written after seeing my report (as far as I understand it): [2]
So, if you can comment on Arrow's comment, I would appreciate it. --Aminz 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I seriously have to step away from it. I agree that what Arrow740 wrote is a mischaracterization of the situation but I really need to just pull back from this a touch right now. These sorts of problems unfortunately take time to rectify when one is trying to co-edit relative to such biased and unencylopedic editing. (Netscott) 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyways Scott. Have nice times. --Aminz 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, do you realize that all slaves taken from Africa were either captured or sold by Muslim slavers? So any picture of an African slave is relevant. Arrow740 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of citation are you looking for? Arrow740 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What do mean by exemplary? They are examples of slaves, enslaved or sold by Muslims. Slavery was given divine sanction. In an article about any religion and slavery, pictures slaves taken or sold by members of that religion would be topical. Arrow740 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and support your actions except for the photo with the citation linking it to the Arab slave trade, for the reasons I noted above. Would you accept reinstating that one? Arrow740 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) and Levitron[edit]

Hi Netscott! I'm suprised that you'd mistake for a "personal blog." :) It's intended of course to be a science education resource website. Paper publishing and website content both have the same issues: everything hinges on the credibility of the author. Inspect their credentials. If I'm misleading people using unreliable information, then I'm misleading a *very* large audience. (Of course this doesn't apply to the "weird science" section, which is intended to be raving crackpotism!)
But if this is about the "Hidden history" article, the above issues don't apply. The "Hidden history" article is a mirror copy of the original that was once on the Sherlocks' website. I've been following the Levitron controversy from the start. The author of that article is the Sherloks; one party in the Levitron controversy. The other party, William Hones, has no corresponding online information as far as I know.
The real issue here is balance versus attempted censorship. If WP is to include information about a controversy, to preserve balance both sides of the issues must be presented. On the WP Levitron entry this is impossible because parties with a very large personal interest keep deleting all information about the controversy and all links referencing it, while disengenuously citing OR, or bias, or unreliable source. Yet any discussion of the controversy needs to link to information about Hones side of the story, as well as the "Hidden history" article and the extensive evidence it presents. Trouble is, all other copies of that article have been removed from the www because Hones/Fascinations has made legal threats against hosting ISPs. Rather than countering their evidence and presenting his side of the story, Hones is apparently trying to silence his opponent. For example, there once was a copy of that article on a physicist's website at UCLA physics department, but Hones managed to force its removal. Maglev physicist Dr. Martin Simon can tell you that story. Owners of my own ISP take a very dim view of bullies who try to suppress information through hollow legal threats, so Hones' lawyer message to did not cause the removal of the remaining copy found on my site. Besides "hidden history," any discussion of the Levitron controversy needs to reference this 1999 newspaper article:, as well as this article by J. Chieffo, one of the two inventors of the first spin-stablized maglev toy. People keep adding these links to the article, yet both have been repeatedly removed. --Wjbeaty 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had my time eaten by moderating a fight and removing a subscriber. Now I'm back! :)
like a personal blog you are the only one exercising editorial control over it, no? Exactly. But the issues are usually different for each article. The current version of the Sherlock's article is just a mirror copy I received from the Sherlocks, and I had no input on it. Earlier I hosted a copy of that original top page which I took directly from their website, but I didn't originally preserve any of the linked gifs/jpegs/etc. As for other material on my website... are you talking about my lunatic ravings or my perpetual motion and antigravity resources in the /weird/ section? :) Or about the physics student projects? Or the curriculum material aimed at grade school science teachers, some of which was reviewed by an enormous group of university-level physics professors and some of which was added later without review? (And does the crazy content cancel out the serious?) Some of my articles are pointing out widespread flaws in long-respected sources. Why should anyone distrust a major reference book written by experts, and take my articles seriously? And one or two of my articles contain actual new ideas, so there is no possibility of adding references to any earlier source as is supposedly required.
On Wikipedia:Reliable sources There are good points, but I see some huge flaws: Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. Well, in my experience this is not true. One reason is that I intentionally resist putting my stuff in print. If people want it, they have to come to my website where they'll then find all my other stuff. That creates an astronomically large readership which paper books do not. No doubt a few other web authors do the same. Another reason it's not true is that people don't plagarise. If a web article is the original source for something, no 3rd party ever comes in and takes it for journal publication or whatever. They just reference it like any other article. On the other hand, if Wikipedia:Reliable sources is unclear, and they meant to say that, if the material was any good, then THE AUTHOR would have submitted the web articles to paper journal publishers... they're simply wrong and have a seriously web-hostile bias. I could turn this paper-centric thinking around and say that WP itself is obviously questionable, because if it was any good at all, Jimbo would be selling paper bound copies which were fact-checked by reputable people with verifiable names and credentials. (Or does the reasoning in Wikipedia:Reliable sources never apply to WP itself, but just to other author's websites?) More from WP:Reliable Sources: second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. Oh really? WP's existence demonstrates that self-publication on a high-traffic website can actually mean the opposite. Some of my articles are ancient and have been fact-checked via years of continuing controversy, by extremely hostile readers searching for flaws, and by expert readers noticing new issues, all sending in commentary resulting in changes or more frequently clarification and expansions. Such checking doesn't happen with articles in even prestigious journals. There's no proof though, so the trustworthyness of the people involved becomes critical. On the other hand, many of my articles were written in one go and never modified or commented upon. So it all depends on which article is under scrutiny, and this information is not in the articles.
What do you think about that idea? Well, the Levitron WP article contains major physics content in History copies, all of which were deleted by whoever and then re-written from scratch and then deleted, repeatedly. If I had the time, I'd be going back through all those censored versions and reusing the wasted labor that went into those physics sections. And about gyroscopic forces, they certainly do exist. It's only the radially-directed centrifugal and centripetal pseudo-forces perceived by accelerated observers which must be treated more carefully, but those don't apply here. --Wjbeaty 06:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: No guidelines[edit]

Hi Netscott, there's mention of situation where the TOC is displayed and how to avoid displaying it when you don't like it. The TOC should be displayed especially in long articles since it's very hard to find information you're looking for without it. TOC may be easily hidden in articles with two headings, see also and refs, because such short article doesn't need TOC that much but it's pointless to hide it in long articles. Thank you.--Pethr 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this template has some support especially by experienced users but I can't see how it can help casual visitor in getting information. If somebody is reading it from the top he will scroll a little or click hide if user comes from search engine looking for some information he will very likely read the intro or quickly skip to relevant section. If reader feels like he doesn't need TOC he can hide it it's as simple as clicking show when using your template. May be it doesn't look so good but it's extremely helpful piece of article. If you don't like TOC I recommend you going to your user prefs clicking misc tab and disabling TOC. You don't like TOC, imagine that next month somebody won't like infoboxes because they distract from reading of the text and in few more months users will have to click five times to see anything at all.--Pethr 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said I don't pretend that there isn't any reason at all to hide the TOC I just feel strongly that the negatives outweigh anything you've said, especially aesthetics. I'm thinking about nominating it for deletition to generate some discussion. Concern about blank space should not be given priority over as easy and quick accessibility of information as possible. If user don't like TOC he either disabled it in prefs already or clicks hide. IMO majority of users need TOC and have to click show for no good reason.--Pethr 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, could I ask a favor?[edit]

I asked Risker as well... I've (with Gwen Gale!) done a lot of work on the article RegisterFly. would you mind going over it? I asked before, I don't want to be a pest and won't bother you again if you have other commitments (I don't want you to feel obliged/guilty or anything!). If you don't want to, no worries at all. From seeing you work on the Essjay article you seem to be a very good editor... The article has become much, much more stable and I think it actually has GA/possible FA legs eventually. I'd love to get more eyes on it. I put it up for Peer & Good Article review just now also. - Denny 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputedtag req. for input[edit]

Your participation in {{Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help- please. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. deleted[edit]

I don't understand why people have problems with humor articles, Jimbo even makes them. Anyway, somebody deleted it. No discussion, no "how about changing this or that", just a straight up delete on the basis that we were slamming a competitor, jeeez. It's always something. What is the proceedure to undelete Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.? Here is my reasoning:

1. If you delete that article, you must also delete this one: Wikipedia:Primogeniture, which was the basis of the B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. article. And also delete half of the other humor pages I know of.

2. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a wikipedia competitor, it is an evil organization.

3. The encyclopedia Britanica is spelled with only one letter "t", while B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a word at all, but an acronym consisting of several words.

4. The article was clearly marked as humor.

5. There is no Cabal.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice tool[edit]

The online link suggesting tool is really cool. --Aminz 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I suppose transcluding something would have been neater and more maintainable. Is there a way to assign a string to a variable and then use it again later on the page? Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes the transclusions make a lot of sense. It is a bit unfortunate that <ref>s don't currently work properly in transclusions. There's no real way to assign strings to variables. The closest is to utilize transclusions as they were on the page previously. Were you thinking of this for the warning language or some other aspect? (Netscott) 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for the warnings. The only problem I see with transclusions is we don't get a good dated version. The existing version of the transclusion always appears as it is now, even in historical versions of the article. Of course that isn't a problem with html comments -- I just didn't think of doing it until I had already pasted it in. Variables would be handy, but it's probably just as well that we can't put arbitrary javascript on a page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if you could help walk me through some processes[edit]

(Sorry for the long story, but the background leads up to what I want to learn how to do.) I made the mistake of hitting "random article" last evening and wound up on the Kim Kardashian page. The key focus of the article is her apparent appearance on a celebrity sex tape. (If only you knew how ironic it is that I would be editing an article about one of Paris Hilton's friends...) Well, I did my duty as a good Wikipedian, cleared out a dead reference link, made the language slightly more encyclopedic, cleared out the inappropriate categories, and most particularly removed the links to the website that is selling the video - no content, just sales pitch. I left a message on the talk page, explaining what I had done and reinforcing that the commercial links to vivid dot com were not appropriate.

Well. Since then, the commercial links have been added back by three anons and one registered user, and also removed by other editors. The guys adding them back in seem to be actively doing this for commercial reasons, based on their talk page histories. Based on quick checks, anons and seem to be open proxies out of Korea; is out of Bulgaria, and I'd guess it's probably an open proxy too. Bigdaddyc 187 and user seem to have come to an agreement on their talk pages as to which spam link to add; their discussions seem to also involve some sort of programming to automate the spam into the article. So there are a few things that need fixing here, none of which I have ever done before.

Could you help me figure out how to:

  • figure out if there are vivid dot com links in other articles so that I can
    • get vivid dot com onto the blacklist
  • properly report the suspected open proxies
  • alert someone about the programming thing, if it really is that

The article has already survived one AfD, and I am hard pressed to suggest it should be deleted. The only real issue seems to be the commercial links. If you aren't quite up to walking me through this process, would you perhaps be so kind as to suggest someone who might be willing? Thanks in advance. Risker 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker, follow this link which I've preconfigured to search for links. That's the Special:Linksearch tool. For open proxies see:Wikipedia:No open proxies. As far as software to automate link spamming they will be hard pressed to do that. Any user that appears to be operating automatically (ie: through a bot) is subject to indefinite blocking. They'll have no success either with using IPs as Wikipedia has a spam blocking aspect that doesn't allow IPs to enter in addresses without typing in letters corresponding to visually garbled text. Follow these suggestions and if you have need for further assistance then don't hesitate to get back to me. Cheers. :-) (Netscott) 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Netscott. I've managed to report the suspected open proxies and got rid of most of the links (the only one remaining being in the talk page of the article). With that in mind, it probably doesn't need to be blacklisted. This is the diff talking about the "programming" bit, since I know nada about code I don't know if it is real or just a bunch of hooey...but it was the registered user who was writing the code bit. [3]. Thanks again. Risker 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz's user talk page[edit]

You commented "if the user wants to leave a notice let him do so". He did leave a notice—and reinforced that six times. If anything, please revert back to the revision that Qxz (adamantly) wanted. GracenotesT § 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Not trying to anklebite you there. If you re-revert I'll leave it alone (but please see expanded rationale at the TfD). I'm not trying to put you in 3RR checkmate or anything. The non-noincluding of the TfD template is a bit controversial, and many of thing it should not be used unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I put for that there isn't one here. The TfD is totally unjustified by anything but nonsense. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I appreciate your intentions and I will not revert you but honestly I don't see the TfD tag as either a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. I just see it letting folks know that this seemingly useful template is up for deletion. I wouldn't be reverting both you and User:DennyColt save for the fact that I did hear some dissention about the template's utilization. I agree with you as well that at this point the TfD appears snowballed but I am honestly interested in hearing a more complete cross section of the community's view about it. You should know that there are some points (although not strong enough to outweigh the template's immediate benefits imho) that User:Trödel makes that are valid. With the TfD message not displaying in a general sense only TfD concerned parties are going to be voicing their opinions on it and who knows? Maybe they're more concerned with the small technical limitations of the template than your average wikipedia editor. (Netscott) 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, and for not taking my nomination personally, as I admire the work that was done. I do think that it this is one of those templates that tries to do too much - and tyis type of functionality should be part of the software rather than using what my physics advisor would call a "kludge" to have it do what you want. I also favor wide notification - it is the best way to find out if I am just completely out of it :) BTW, I very much like the improvements you have made - I have been doing some experimenting: User:Trödel/TplSandbox --Trödel 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Aye, that looks much better. One more question, though - can you remove the inner border, or is that just impossible with the current CSS implementation? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind welcome. I have read the pages that you instructed me to read. Ibn Shah 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know about those software installations. Please do not ban me for that mistake. Ibn Shah 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Adversarial to whom? I just hate that website for slandering the Prophet so much. Ibn Shah 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I hadn't realized that the website had supporters here. Ibn Shah 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Could be. (Netscott) 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You would guess Vkasdg? Well, it would be nice if you and he were getting along well, but his talk page suggests that would be surprising. Tom Harrison Talk 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes he popped up not long ago. Here he was editing Diyya in late February and he edited Sharia a bunch as well (all under an anon IP of course). (Netscott) 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit to slavery is telling as well. (Netscott) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Note the language ← on this edit. (Netscott) 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny enough save for Vkasdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s constant disruptive image edits on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article I got the impression that he probably wasn't all that bad as a person. (Netscott) 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Vkasdg and Ibn Shah's use of language seems different, but there is not a lot to compare at this point. I guess things will either develop as they have in the past, or not. Tom Harrison Talk 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't have a clue what I'm doing, [4] as you may have suspected. Maybe it's just my browser, but a few weeks ago, all the user names in these templates shrunk for me, and look tiny compared to the words next to them (talk, contribs, log, whatever). So I was hoping to fix it so that they're all the same size again. But perhaps I should leave well alone. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the link to the letter N. I have read the article. I think you have misunderstood the note in the article for With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. In that show, Randy Marsh is a contestant on Wheel Of Fortune. He is given 5 free letters to use in solving the puzzle, RTSLE. However, on the real Wheel Of Fortune, contestants are given 6 letters, RSTLNE. This is a valid, noteworthy difference betwen the real show and the one portrayed on South Park. The usage of N as a replacement for the word "and" does not really apply in this case. Captain Infinity 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm already on the talk page, you know. Discussion is better than reverting people with such edit summaries as "nope". >Radiant< 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know where I stand on this issue. We're heading back down this road now. (Netscott) 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And why are we doing that, exactly? You make some strange changes, and when I object to those you declare the entire page wrong. How is that constructive? You're welcome to expand the section on AFD/RFA/etcetera polls; stating in the header that "Wikipedia works by consensus however AFD works by polling" is an easily-misunderstood phrasing. >Radiant< 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the page reads false pure and simple. It starts off virtually negating polling as Wikipedia practice when everyone knows this is wrong. Even User:Kim Bruning will tell you this. Mark my word Radiant! , I am in this for the long haul. (Netscott) 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said twice already, you're welcome to fix the header but your recent edit was problematic in that it introduced a false dichotomy. >Radiant< 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

re: canvassing[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your ardent defence of Wikipedia from editors engaged in canvassing and general disruptive behaviour ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

as a sidenote... i found the canvassing method rather amusing... pass a few articles as GA, and then post on the talk page virtually requesting that they 'return the favour.' Wikipedia can do without this. thanks again. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the 'ole quid pro quo method employed by User:DavidYork71. I suspect he'll not be editing on the project for much longer. Thanks for the recognition. :-) (Netscott) 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on the info posted to WP:AN/I and my talk page you may wish to raise a case at WP:SSP. See this as an example of a past case involving IP sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied text from my talk page to AN/I report and reported there that I have blocked the IP (and the others I could find) and have initialised the SP category page. I've asked for another admin to review the 48 hour block in case it needs to be extended - as I took the last two actions it's better that it be neutrally decided upon. Orderinchaos 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale[edit]

I had already posted this on ANI, but I've protected User talk:Gwen Gale per these comments for a period of 6 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


If you consider this all "time wasting nonsense", you shouldn't be unilaterally revoking guidelines. None of us has that authority. That some people still use the phrase "voting is evil" has nothing at all to do with WP:PNSD; if you wish that phrase deprecated, I'd suggest you nominate those few pages with "evil" in their title for deletion, both here and on meta. That approach has worked quite well for getting rid of the term "vanity". >Radiant< 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh, I understand it fine. I'm simply adding relevant facts. Stands to reason that any page that explains how to do something should also explain when (or when not) to do something. >Radiant< 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, and since we already have that page it's rather pointless to create another. If you don't like the wording of a page, the solution is to edit it, not to create a POV fork. >Radiant< 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is getting sillier by the minute. You're saying that a page that is controversial may not point out that it's controversial? You have any policy backing that up? I thought not. >Radiant< 09:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Historical content[edit]

I kind of see why you're doing this, but rather than making Yet Another template this could be better solved by adding a parameter to {{historical}}, and/or restoring the wording that template had three days ago. >Radiant< 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong tag used at polls[edit]

Hi. The historic tag should not have been used at the polls which you referenced as examples in your edit explanation at the historic tag. The proper tag should have been "archive". I've changed the tag at both places. I think that the historic tag is very misused and misunderstood, that is why I have been advocating the clearer but wordier text within the tag. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. Much of the terminology at WP is a bit vague. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your greetings[edit]

Wa alaykum assalam. الٓمٓ 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My name shows up in between the timestamp on your page. Is that normal? الٓمٓ 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is like this: <span style="font-size:20px">[[User:Alif Lam Meem|الٓمٓ]]</span>
I created this account because as an IP I felt that I was not being taken seriously. So I figured should create an account, but it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. الٓمٓ
I am not familiar with that IP nor those two mentioned user accounts. I certainly don't want to impersonate someone else, but I think our usernames are different enough to easily tell us apart. الٓمٓ 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case, perhaps I am also a secret paid propagandist agent of CAIR or Hezbollah. الٓمٓ

Faith Freedom International[edit]

It is true that we should of course prefer secondary sources where such sources exist, but on the other hand I do not believe that believe that primary sources is per definition unacceptable if used properly and responsibly. In the case where I just restored some content supported by primary sources, I believe that was the case and that a very important aspect of the articles subject was being discussed. I would be great if the same thing could be written again using only high quality secondary sources, but until that happens I believe that we should keep the material that we already have. The part discussing the challenges could have better sources, but simply deleting it and not having anything on the topic is not a good alternative. As for deleting the article, I would also disagree with that. I believe that the articles subject is clearly notable, and I believe that there exist enough material and sources to make its notability pretty obvious. -- Karl Meier 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott[edit]

Thanks for the background info. I'm actually just reviewing the contribs since his last block to see if another one has been earned, but I'm having major laptop problems and it's making it really difficult. :/ If you feel a community ban is warranted, you should propose it on CN (I'm sensing from emails I just received that there will be community support for it). Cheers, Sarah 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say Mr. York certainly has one of the strangest confluences of interests and expressed viewpoints I've ever seen in a Wikipedia editor, and certainly the most disturbing. - Merzbow 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I must say I agree. Orderinchaos 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "any idiot"? - apologies[edit]

Hello Merbabu, per Wikipedia:Civility your edit summary here is not appropriate. For the most part folks who do GA reviews are volunteering their time to help benefit the project. Kindly refrain from making similarly natured commentary in the future. Thanks. (Netscott) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - it was indeed poorly judged on my behalf. But, please know that it was not my intention to belittle the GA process, to which I have submitted articles myself. Rather, i don't want to see GA status used incorrectly. I've tried to make amends be a self revert and re-revert with apologies. Frustration of seeing WP going to shit is my reason, but this is not an excuse. thanks and sorry. Merbabu 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a bad idea to pick more fights :-)[edit]

There's enough trouble working on Straw Polls, without actually provoking people, I think. Let's leave out merge and move requests, shall we? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's User:Ned Scott's doing. (Netscott) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Um, your names seem rather similar. What's with that? --Kim Bruning 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TOC on Dhimma[edit]

For your edit here, actually the TOC looks better unhidden. It has lots of interesting topics. When I went to this page, I didnt even notice its hidden. I brought it back. Even though the white space is there, its more important for all those topics to appear by default on the page when a user sees that page. I have the same opinion on Islam. While you might see the TOC as disruptive, you should think of new users. They want to know the topics in the article. --Matt57 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And oh, you should unhide the TOC on your talk page too. The TOC is there for a purpose, e.g. for shortcuts. I propose that you should try to do something like a "TOCSmall" - something that is smaller, yet has all the links we need and maybe we can have something like TOCsmallright or left. --Matt57 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Scott, It seems we have a new sock of David York: [5] --Aminz 09:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, what do you think of [6], and [7]. It might be David York?--Aminz 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is none other than David York. (Netscott) 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious warning[edit]

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether or not the personal details are accurate.

From Wikipedia:Harassment

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself.

As a courtesy, I am not going to block you now, although you have been warned about this before. Consider this to be your very very final warning. If it happens again, I may even block you indefinitely. I'm not interested in whether your guess is accurate or not. Do not do it again. If you want to discuss this, use private e-mail. If you ever have a serious reason to raise concerns about who another editor may be (and I have no idea if this is the case here, as I haven't been following this), the only appropriate way of raising these concerns would be by private e-mail to the arbitration committee. Anything you post here that will lead to people making guesses about what may or may not be another editor's name will result in an immediate block. Musical Linguist 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? (Netscott) 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
At 10:36 UTC, you made a post to a user talk page, in which you used what you presumably believed to be a user's real name. I have deleted it from the history. If it was just a careless slip, please take special care that it doesn't happen again. The only case in which it is appropriate to use what may be a real name when it's not the same as a user name is when the user himself or herself voluntarily provides that information. Under no other circumstances should it ever be done. Musical Linguist 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And I was "warned" for this where now? I have no clue who's name is real and who's name is false on the Wiki here. This particularly given the whole Essjay controversy fiasco. If this is in regards to who I think this is in regards to then that individual should stop defending Wiki hate mongerers as he has now done on Wikipedia on more than one occassion so that the project will have a better chance to fruitfully go forward. (Netscott) 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the question written immediately above the words that I am typing now, I did not say that you were warned about precisely the same issue. I have spoken to you before about the necessity to respect the fact that a user may not want his or her real life name appearing on Wikipedia. People have been stalked in real life because of the appearance of their real names on Wikipedia. They have received harassing phonecalls, their superiors at work have been written to, their families have been threatened. I find your appearance of innocence and of not understanding to be quite unconvincing. In the edit that I deleted, you not only used what you believe to be an editor's real name (which has not been acknowledged by that editor); you even put it in the edit summary. Now I happen to know what Str1977's real name is. If I send him a private e-mail, I often use it. I suppose it's possible (but extremely unlikely) that I could absent-mindedly put it in a post to or about him on Wikipedia — perhaps if I had been up all night and had had too much to drink. But if I did, I'd be absolutely horrified, and would, as an admin, immediately delete the page. If I were not an admin, I'd revert myself immediately and send a private e-mail to some administrator or to the oversight team. I wouldn't say "What are you even talking about?" when an admin came to my page to warn me. And in any case, no matter how short of sleep I was, and how much I had had to drink, I do not think it is possible that I could put Str1977's real name both in the text of a post and in the edit summary and not know that I had done so. Str1977, on the other hand, does use my Christian name (though not my surname) here on Wikipedia, as do many others, because I acknowledge freely that my name is Ann.
Regarding your question on my talk page, when I saw the posts from the user in question, my first thought was that while it could be the user you are thinking of, it is by no means clear that it was. There are people who dislike that user, including the main person who was in dispute with him, and including yourself. It would be perfectly possible for either of you to create a sockpuppet to make a complaint about you with the sole purpose of giving the impression that he had created a sockpuppet, so that there would be grounds for tagging the sockpuppet page with his real name, and for putting his real name all over Wikipedia, on noticeboards, etc. I'd like to make it clear that I do not think you had anything to do with it, but given how easy it would be for someone who doesn't like him to do that, there can be absolutely no justification for posting someone's real name because of an account that was created either to attack you or to frame him, and I am happy to see that you did not attempt to do so. It would be different if we were talking about the suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. There is a justification, if a user is indefinitely banned in his own name, for using his name when referring to suspected reincarnations.
I am not a particular friend of the editor that you are in dispute with, and so have little knowledge of the entire case. But I am unaware of any occasion when he ever did anything so disgraceful as posting what he believed to be the real name of an editor who wished to remain anonymous. I am not aware of whether or not he defends "wiki hate mongerers", but even if he does, he has the right not to have his real name used on Wikipedia if he wishes to keep his anonymity. When I am upholding harassment guideline and the stalking part of our blocking policy, it makes no difference to me whether the person whose details are posted is a close friend or someone I thoroughly dislike. It makes no difference whether I think the posted information is accurate or not. The only thing that matters here is that a user who does not wish to be exposed to the risk of the kind of real life harassment that has resulted in some cases from the use of one's real name on Wikipedia is not to be exposed to that risk. If you want to take a complaint further, or if you want something investigated where the evidence you would have to submit would involve using a the real name of a user who has not been banned under his or her real name (or under any other, to the best of my knowledge), I suggest that you send a private e-mail to the arbitration committee. Musical Linguist 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A checkuser request generally has to name the suspected puppeteer, and not just the suspected puppet. If you name just the puppet, and ask whose puppet it is, you'll very likely be told that "checkuser isn't for fishing". If you're thinking of a long discontinued account, it's too old to check. It wouldn't be possible. If you're thinking of someone active on Wikipedia now, you'd have to give some credible evidence of why you think that user is User:Nedlington9. If you can't do that without mentioning what may be an editor's real name, you should do it by private e-mail to an administrator with checkuser access. Remember that it may not be the person you're thinking of. It could be someone who dislikes that user, or it could be someone who dislikes you. There is simply not a justification to expose what may be an editor's real name just because a sockpuppet was created, when the sockpuppet may have been created for the very purpose of providing a justification for revealing that editor's name.
If a user is banned, and comes back using a sockpuppet, you have every right to expose him or her. If a user no longer wishes his or her real name to be used on Wikipedia, discontinues an account, and comes back with a username, and you suspect something, you simply keep quiet about it. If the puppet is not being used to violate 3RR, or to give a false impression of consensus, then you keep quiet about it. You have quoted this section of policy, but that section explicitly says that it may be justified to create another account in order to avoid real life harassment. The "avoiding scrutiny" part really does not prohibit a user from discontinuing the use of an account that can be traced to his or her real life identity, and starting another.
I think it was perfectly proper to block User:Nedlington9, by the way, but I don't see justification for taking it further. As for your claim that if you're being "attacked" you have "the right to know" who's attacking you, the post at ANI didn't really attack you. You had committed what is just about the very worst thing that a Wikipedian can do — using what you believed to be the real name of someone that you presumably knew wanted to keep anonymity, not just in the text of your post, but even in your edit summary. I have blocked people for that before, and expect to do it again. You're not really in a position to feel indignant at someone using a puppet to "avoid srcutiny" (and I remain unconvinced that it was the user you suspect). This sock simply pointed out what you had done (though it seems an exaggeration to say that you were harassing other userS), and recommended a block. In fact I nearly did block you at the time.
I suggest you just forget about this terrible crime of "avoiding scrutiny". It really applies to people running several accounts at the same time, not to a case of someone who might stop using an account that can be traced to his or her real life identity and might register a new one. Try to behave as if it is important to you that personal details of editors' identities not be made public. And if you want a checkuser, my advice is to ask for one with just the name of the suspected puppet, explaining that you want to know who is making attacks against you, or (since that's likely to be rejected) e-mail someone with checkuser, giving fuller details. (Select checkusers at Special:Listusers and press "go".) Or, if you like, I can ask someone to run a usercheck. Musical Linguist 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I know some people have criticised you on the talk page for this template, I just thought I'd drop by and say that I think it is excellent, and I intend to use it. Good thinking. J Milburn 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there hasn't been much criticism about this tag of late... it would be preferrable that it'd not be necessary but unfortunately [original research?] is all too commonly found in articles. Folks seem to be getting some usage out of that tag. :-) (Netscott) 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused at the message you left on his talk page. I don't see how he insulted you so much that you have to leave that comment. --KZTalkContribs 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a long story that is based upon the fact that User:Proabivouac is a sockpuppet of another account (check his first contributions and you'll see the classic signs). This section of my talk page surrounds this. I am disgusted that this editor continues to operate on the project while avoiding scrutinty from other editors in terms of his previous actions and his biases. This apparently due to "privacy" issues. Based upon those issues and a couple of other ones I honestly believe that the project would be better off without this editor's involvement. (Netscott) 11:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. --KZTalkContribs 11:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New messages banner[edit]

I thought I had new messages when I visited your userpage. The banner appears very similar to the user interface, whats the point? (said in good faith tone :P )v/r Navou banter / contribs 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is to change it like here, here and here and to foster a friendly spirit towards collaborative ends. By all means I invite you to change it! :-) (Netscott) 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:New Mesages Box[edit]

I do want to put it back up, but how do I?Trampton 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, God bless you!=)Trampton 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


If you have suspicions you should ask for a checkuser. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Had a brain freeze on which CSD category applied and was about to go look when I got your message. + email Orderinchaos 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


If you want an RfC filed on me do it yourself. I've actually somewhat enjoyed responding to similar frivolous attacks in the past. Obviously I won't be nominating myself to be an admin; users familiar with the edits of those nominated for RfA's who have been alienated can often find evidence of lack of even-handedness in lists of contributions. Arrow740 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Essjay controversy revert[edit]


I've reverted your removal of discussion from the Talk:Essjay controversy page. The matter of QuackGuru's ongoing disruption is a legitimate concern; further, as he wipes any comments from his own talk page, the article's talk page as notification of his tendentious editing is appropriate to use. --LeflymanTalk 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As you might be aware, the particular editor has been asked repeatedly to desist in edit warring and POV-pushing, which he continues with. He's managed to disrupt the article to the point of protection a number of time, antagonising other editors repeatedly; when he didn't get the version he wanted, created a POV-fork on his user page, which was subsequently deleted in an MFD. (As you probably know, since yours was the first comment on it.)--LeflymanTalk 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru RFC[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru, just started. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I didnt know you made the tnavbar template. Great work. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonus point[edit]

Compass thumbnail.jpg
I give bonus points
for anyone who converts
the tag to haiku.

>Radiant< 08:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to direct that to User:Badlydrawnjeff as I believe it was he who properly Haikuified the tag... I just formalized it all with {{poem}}. (Netscott) 08:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Netscott (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am sorry, but this is a valid 3RR block, I don't see anything punitive, and 3RR is not a entitlement to 3 edits a day. — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (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.

odd, I've been blocked for 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Straw polls but the page has been protected. Is this a punative block? (Netscott) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the corresponding report about this. (Netscott) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked it over, I cannot see that it is punitive. It does look like a 3RR violation, if you don't think it is then please explain how. As for it being punitive, who do you think is being punitive, Radiant! who reported the violation, or Kafziel that reviewed the violation and applied the block? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have 3 reverts. rv1, rv2, rv3 (rv3 is a string of contiguous edits) Radiant! trumped this to look like more than that. This block is punative because I cannot edit Wikipedia:Straw polls when it is protected. (Netscott) 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If I am to be blocked then the same logic that applies for my blockage would apply for User:Radiant!. (Netscott) 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:3RR "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." It seems you only made 3 edits that day, I don't think you are in technical violation of 3RR. I am going to talk to the blocking admin about this before unblocking you though as one can violate 3RR without doing more than three reverts.
I am not sure I see any bad faith or punitive behavior here, but I could be a mistake. It is also possible that Kafziel knew it was only 3 reverts but felt you were in violation of 3RR's spirit. I will get back to you. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
HighInBC, your assistance is appreciated. (Netscott) 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I figured you'd complain about some technicality or another, which is why I was reluctant to participate at all. 3RR is not a guarantee of 3 edits per day, as you well know. It's childish to say that the block is punitive but then to say that I should have blocked Radiant! along with you. Did I block too many people, or not enough? It can't be both.
I protected the article (your version of the article, I might add) to prevent Radiant! from editing it. I know he can edit it, but if he does that he will be in violation of the protection policy so I trust that he won't. If he violates the protection policy by editing the page, I will block him, too. After all your nonsense, this is as fair a shake as the two of you deserve. As far as I'm concerned, if nobody is happy then I probably made the right decision. Kafziel Talk 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for clarification[8]. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the page being protected, that was done because of the reverting. If an admin starts reverting now that it is protected due to edit warring it would be seen as an abuse of admin tools. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what Netscott means by "punitive" is that the purpose of 3RR is to prevent edit-warring, and where the page being edited is now protected, a block is unnecessary to prevent edit-warring on that page. Therefore, it is sometimes said that "a block would be merely punitive" in that circumstance. I am sure it wasn't meant as an imputation of bad intent by the blocking admin or anyone else. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, as a non-admin I cannot edit that page... 3RR blocks are meant to prevent disruption on the page in question. Also if I am to be blocked then per WP:3RR Enforcement User:Radiant! who has engaged in the same behavior (over the same amount of time) should be treated equally. (Netscott) 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See my statement above. The page is protected to keep Radiant! from disrupting it, not you. Kafziel Talk 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Equal measures for equal behavior: 3RR vio3, 3RR vio2, 3RR vio1, why is User:Radiant! not blocked as well? He even violated 3RR on Meta as I illustrated on his 3RR report. (Netscott) 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Netscott (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

There is not equal enforcement on this block. The other editor involved User:Radiant! has engaged in identical behavior and yet remains unblocked. (→Netscott) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblocking has been discussed thoroughly and declined by several admins. I am removing this request to get Netscott out of the Requests for unblock Category." — A Traintalk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (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.

Netscott, first you have had an unblock review, a thorough one at that. An unblock template is not the forum to call for the block of another, but rather to explain why your block is not valid. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I see only 2 reverts from radiant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Review the entire history of that page as well as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution you'll find equal behavior. Again this application of a block is not equitable. (Netscott) 15:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you bring it up on ANI after you block expires, as radiant's need of a block has nothing to do with your block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you denying that he has engaged in an equal level of edit warring? (Netscott) 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not denying anything. I am saying the if he has or not violated 3RR has nothing at all to do with your block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on, equal enforcement is clear about how whether or not User:Radiant! is blocked relative to my own blockage. Is that not clear? (Netscott) 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But radiant didn't even come close to violating the rule in this incident. You are brining up old incidents, from different pages, that have already been discussed. As I said, if you think there is an injustice make a post at WP:ANI tomorrow, but this does not excuse your violation of 3RR one little bit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's just it... he has though, repeatedly... besides I am not being blocked here for a technical violation I am being blocked for a "spirit" violation... well there's certainly enough "spirit" to go around. (Netscott) 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Look just the other day on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: rv1, rv2, rv3 (to a version prior to the existence of that section - a typical gaming the system revert). (Netscott) 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I already told you to bring all this up at ANI tomorrow. I am not going to do anything about this unless it has been discussed by a larger group at ANI. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, I doubt a posting on ANI is going to do much... there's not much admin intervention that could be brought to bear on this in an immediate sense (which is what ANI is about)... I appreciate you're taking the time to discuss this with me... let another uninvolved party take an opportunity to review this unblock request. (Netscott) 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion on User:Kafziel's page is pertinent to this unblock request. (Netscott) 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to do this because I shouldn't have to, but I guess I also need to point out that Radiant! and I are not pals by any means. We have had our share of disagreements and even heated disputes about his unilateral changes to guideline pages. The fact that I did not block him should in no way suggest favoritism, or even that I think he is right. I did what I could to ensure that the edit warring would stop with the least disruption possible. If I only protected the page, the edit warring would still go on somewhere else. If I only blocked you without protecting the page, someone else could have reverted your edits while you were out of the way. That wouldn't be fair to you.

Radiant! is willing to abide by the rules in almost all cases, so I can trust him to respect the page protection, stop the edit warring, and seek a better resolution. You can't even abide by the rules enough to sit out a tiny 24 hour block without posting {{unblock}} requests one after another. Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.

So: blocking one editor puts the argument on hold wherever it might be, while protecting that one page prevents the unblocked editor from gaining any advantage. Blocking Radiant! at this point would be overkill. It would only be punitive which, as you've already pointed out, is unacceptable. Kafziel Talk 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with posting a second request... obviously additional requests beyond 2 would be problematic... you've now had two admins who've questioned your block of me... that is telling, with a third commenting about it. This block is punative because I can in no way alter the given page where the disruption was occuring and I've been blocked due to violating the spirit of 3RR. Radiant! surely has violated the spirit of 3RR himself very repeatedly and as such it is highly un-equitable that I should be punished in this way and prevented from editing all pages (including the Don Imus article which I have been struggling to help maintain NPOV on given the prominence of his story in the news) while he is merely "prevented" from editing one page. (Netscott) 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Two admins did not question his block of you. I only asked if he had full possession of the facts when he made it, I agree Kafziels judgment, and while Tom did question the block he also said he would leave it to Kaf's judgment. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the same position as Tom from the above description - somewhat questioning the block (3RR requires a 4th revert, which was not done, and I think a level 4 followed by block for general disruptive editing would have been the way to go on this), but I can see that this is a carefully considered decision on the blocking admin's part and I leave it to Kaf's judgement. Orderinchaos 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
From the unblock template: This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request. (Not my emphasis.) It doesn't say, "Unless you're not happy with the first decision, in which case go ahead and post another one. But anything beyond that would be problematic."
You claim to have important work to do elsewhere, but it's easy to see your real priorities. How would blocking Radiant! allow you to do that? You would still be blocked, so Don Imus would still be left to others. Clearly you're more concerned with getting even with others than you are about contributing, and your attitude here only tells me I've made the right decision. Kafziel Talk 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you've misinterpreted my words. I am saying that if User:Radiant! who's engaged in identical behavior (chronically even) is not blocked then where is the sense in my being blocked? Optimally no one is blocked the page is protected, he and I seek mediation about this long and ongoing poll dispute and this situation moves forward. (Netscott) 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, optimally you would have sought mediation without edit warring at all. But since you did edit war, you got blocked. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you do that, so you can't blame anyone but yourself.
As far as I'm concerned, suggestions of mediation should have been made long before this issue even got to 3RR. Once it gets that far, your chance for offering compromises is over. I'm not in the habit of taking solution suggestions from editors in their own 3RR reports, because not a lot would get done if I did. The best way to avoid being pissed off at me is to avoid making me get involved in the first place. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not "pissed off" at you... but moreso the disparate application of preventative measures in this case particularly given User:Radiant! established pattern of edit warring surrounding this matter. (Netscott) 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You know if I was a trollish editor and had nothing to show for my time here then this block would be a bit more understandable... but obviously that is not the case. (Netscott) 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you're a good editor. That's why I said this when I saw that the two of you were at 3RR. It's also why I only gave you 24 hours, even though you've been blocked ten times before. Kafziel Talk 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually 7 times, one was a joke block by a youthful admin, "PWNED by an admin" and two others were single blocks reflected in two blockings (the first was lifted and subsequently reapplied) four of which were lifted. (Netscott) 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but basically you're telling me that four admins have believed you when you said you should be unblocked. And yet here we are again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me five times, shame on me. Kafziel Talk 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re unblock request[edit]

This was a valid 3RR block, and an editor of this one's tenure should avoid such violations, but under all the circumstances my view is that it would be acceptable to reduce to time served and unblock now. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to cease all edit warring and pursue mediation regarding my and User:Radiant!'s chronic polling dispute. (Netscott) 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ending the block, per my comment above. You said the same thing to Kelly Martin on 4/14/06, to William Connolly on 4/19/06, to Jacoplane on 5/22/06, to Bastique on 8/25/06, and to Humus Sapiens on 9/1/06. I'd have to be an idiot to believe you. How many times do we need to get slapped in the face before you serve out a block for edit warring? Kafziel Talk 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You know I'd be a bit more understanding of your refusal to unblock me save for the fact that I was last blocked for 3RR on 25 August 2006 . (Netscott) 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The block lifted by William M. Connolley was due in large part because I had actually reported myself. (Netscott) 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not an accomplishment that you haven't been blocked in a while. You're never supposed to get blocked. The fact that you were last blocked in August of 2006 is part of why you only got 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that's appreciated but I was thinking it had more to do with the fact that I've not been blocked for a technical violation of the 3RR. (Netscott) 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

John G. Cramer[edit]

I'm a big fan of "Transactional," similar to Feynman's early back-action photon theory. I've read [Cramer's physics column] for years, and have heard him lecture. But I've never talked personally. He works a couple buildings over from me. :) --Wjbeaty 11:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Netscott - I apologize for my incivil behavior towards you during the WP:CN discussion over user:BhaiSaab and user:His excellency. You were correct in pointing out that the discussion was not over and consensus not clear (about BhaiSaab) - I regret that I jumped the gun by blocking BhaiSaab. At the same time, I maintain that your comments regarding WP:COI and my neutrality were wrong and unjustified. The only explanation for my behavior is stress from the recent ArbCom case, where I was abused as a racist, amongst other things. Although ArbCom punished that behavior, I never really had a chance to vent out my outrage at such incredibly disgusting accusations. Once again, I'm sorry for my rudeness to you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. My action over BhaiSaab was a pure error of judgment with a large degree of over-zealousness - I am very disappointed with myself and I will do a lot more to be careful in the future. If I can be of help in anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Please explain this edit[9]. I am trying to understand it but I seem to be having a hard time. KazakhPol 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Expiration of Cited Newspaper Articles[edit]

Hi Netscott!

We use to corrobate our facts, not with rumours from blogs, but with quotes from "real" newspapers that also has a date a and paper-edition, much like a book has an ISBN number.

For commercial reasons, the free editions of newspapapers expires approximately when our memories fade away (go figure ..) and then new users get annoyed clicking on dead links, thinking that the wiki-editor adding that link must have been trying to lure us all.

Going tru the JP article, this appears not to be the case, the quotes are consistent with what happened. But that is easy for me to say who knows way more of what have been said than is sane :-D

For other (contemporary and controversial) articles that I pass by in wiki. it is near impossible to verify that the quoted dead links really had those bits of information that wiki-article implies.

Now what should we do? Wait for Professor So and Such to publish a book about the subject, which we can then quote from ... ... There will still come a day when the book is out of print, at which time we will be back to square one, so it doesn't work in a waterproof way :-(


What would be wrong with having a peer-reviwed double-check of citations from books, newspapers and magazines? We would then have the peer-reviewed quote "frozen" with time-stamp in our own data-base. Extended quotation beyond mere facts would need permission from the copyrightholders (which will never happen!)

Did I forget anything? Probably :-D Write back to me and tell me what you think

MX44 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tech article[edit]

I can't see any threads about the writing on the talk page. Also not sure there's much point in commenting as it's changing so fast. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just the writing in the lead in general. Things like "made two attacks." I've tightened it some more. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


This comes out of preparing Islam for GA/FA... I don't have much of an opinion on keeping the TOC hidden by default on articles, but looking over recent featured article reviews it seems like many people are speaking out against the practice. Is there any way to show a collapsing-tree TOC that perhaps only lists sections down to a certain level? Only other alternative seems to be to just go ahead and consolidate/depromote until the expanded TOC is short enough. - Merzbow 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of unfortunately. The developers haven't built in much possibility for TOC formatting and my development of Template:TOChidden stems from this lack. (Netscott) 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


If it were to be deleted I would recreate it, and the new version would no longer be created by a banned user. Please save us the time and get rid of the template. Arrow740 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine let it be deleted. We don't reward banned users who contribute while banned by allowing them to have their contributions remain. I caution you about acting as a proxy for User:DavidYork71 as I have seen others who've done similar behavior with other banned users become banned themselves. (Netscott) 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've told him to cut it out both on and off wiki. That doesn't mean that an edit of his can't result in an enrichment of this encyclopedia. In fact I've agreed with some of his proxy edits that I haven't sustained - for the very reason that he is blocked. Arrow740 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter whether a banned editor's edits appear to "enrich" the encyclopedia... by the behavior you're engaging in (acting as a proxy for him) you are aiding and abetting the further particpation of a banned user here. That is wrong. (Netscott) 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
He's not banned. Reinstating the edits of a banned user could be worse. I will take this picture problem of yours to an admin, and from now on if you criticize me please cite a WP policy or guideline when you do so. Arrow740 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already discussed with you the propagandistic nature of your edits with respect to portraying Islam negatively... your inclination to further edit in this manner is not encouraging. (Netscott) 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I care deeply about my inability to encourage you with my inclinations, really. Your perception of my edits is skewed; I just want to portray Islam truthfully. If you think there's something wrong with that, that's a problem on your end. Arrow740 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If people are allowed to portray Islam positively, people should also be allowed to portray Islam negatively. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"When editors who've lost that privilege see their edits supported by others they are rewarded..." - Yes, I think so. I'm glad you do too. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize to what you are referring Tom but as I explained previously, my editing in that regard was in direct response to sockpuppetry by T.U. After your removal I did not continue. (Netscott) 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, well! Arrow740 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't have a problem with restoring personal attacks by a banned user a month ago: [10], [11]. I'll have to take your criticism of me with yet another grain of salt from now on. Arrow740 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The comparison does not fit. (1) Technically speaking User:His excellency's original 6 month ArbCom bannishment had expired on March 3, 2007 (this per the fact that no log of any extension showed otherwise). (2) This user was commenting on a case for his own bannishment (which typically users who are in a banned state are given some leeway to do). (3) The restored edit was talk and not an actual article space edit. (4) The commentary was being removed under false pretenses by a sockpuppet of another user. (Beside myself two adminstrators restored the commentary I might add). So no, my criticism of your actions still sticks, Arrow740. (Netscott) 08:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you think it is your place to judge other wikipedians. Arrow740 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"If people are allowed to portray Islam positively, people should also be allowed to portray Islam negatively." Sorry Matt, and all of you guys, but with all due respect, the page should not depict ANY bias, irrespective of peoples beliefs because of Wikipedia's stance on bias. It should simply state the extent, third party verifiable facts and the article should end there. In some very rare circumstances, it may be acceptable to include an even keel of positives and negatives but they should be clearly labeled as such, otherwise the information could be seen as unbalanced and therefore not suitable for an unbiased resource.
--lincalinca 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaq's user page[edit]

Why dont you come here and participate in this discussion, so we can have all this sorted out. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here [[WP:ANI#Please see WP:ANI#Embargo (talk • contribs) I have removed the text. Please join the discussion on WP:ANI. Thanks. -- Avi 01:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Tnavbar-collapsible[edit]

Hey! i noticed you participated in creating the collapsible navbar. I've posted a suggestion there. I can't program it, but thought since you created it that you might be able to have a crack at it. Thanks.

--lincalinca 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


How did you figure out who the sockpuppets of DavidYork71 were so quickly after they were created?--Sefringle 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for leaving message on my page. regards. --- ALM 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).



Standardising Qur'an citations[edit]

Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar (talkcontribs) — 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Netscott[edit]

Where are you these days? Please do not try to quit. This place will be very bad without people like you. I hope to see my friend back and contributing soon. :) wish best wishes. --- A. L. M. 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia will be a much more peaceful, troll-free environment without Netscott abusing rules and wikilawyering all over the place just to advance his own agenda, no matter who gets trampled in the process, as long as he can censor and cover up any evidence of his wrongdoing, he looks like a respectable member of the community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianapolis (talkcontribs) 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Once again I hope to see you back soon. Missing you. :) --- A. L. M. 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Netscott. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pig person.jpg[edit]

Hello Netscott, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pig person.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


text=thank you Not sure if I thanked you properly for welcoming me back a few months ago. Thanks properly! :) Hope to see you round. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful[edit]

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Questions[edit]


I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.

All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478

Questions: 1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”) 9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre? 10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).

Template:Arab ethnicity[edit]

A template you created, Template:Arab ethnicity, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity[edit]

This is a shared IP address, of Verizon Internet Services. So many people use these IPs and I was not the one who vandalized. But now this annoying "New Messages (last change)" thing keeps appearing. 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


As the original creator of WP:!VOTE, I thought you might have input on my recent proposal to specifically define this term. Ronnotel 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of POINT warning templates[edit]

Several user warning templates related to WP:POINT have been nominated for deletion: {{Disrupt}}, {{Disrupt2}}, {{Disrupt3}}, {{Disrupt4}}, and {{Disrupt5}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at their entry on the Templates for Deletion page. szyslak 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting famous?[edit]

Hi Netscott!

A quick google on your nick revealed this little beauty:

Not to despair though ... Note the last line:

This article is crap. You can help by completely re-writing it.

Cheers! :-D MX44 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Portuguese ethnicity[edit]

Template:Portuguese ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Mergetoform[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Mergetoform requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Blpwatch-snbx2[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Blpwatch-snbx2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User sub-page in categories[edit]

Perplexing Somehow, your page User:Netscott/Muhammad is in several categories (i.e. the categories of the page Muhammad), and I don't know why. I tried to remove them, but I do not see them in the source of the page. Could you please remove this page from these categories intended for article namespace:

Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Asian ethnicity[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Asian ethnicity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I've renamed your {{blpwatch}} to {{blplinks}} to match other "links" templates such as {{userlinks}}, merged in the second subtemplate {{blpwatch-links}} that was more used at BLP/N, and edited the pages they're referenced to make sure it's unchanged where it was used. It's now one template as opposed to a split template, with a standardized name, and zero effect on the pages it was used. Before it was two templates with non-canonical naming. Now it is 100% referenced as {{blplinks|George Bush}}.

(This not only gives it a single standardized name, but also frees up {{blpwatch}} for blp watching, which is being explored more now. The old name used at BLP/N "blpwatch-links" works, but is just a transclusion to the above.)

Hope this is ok? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paris-metro-ticket.png)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah article, FYI[edit]

I have used your name and a diff here [12]. The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I hope you are well, it has been a long time since you edited. HIBC 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All's well, I've been editing... just anonymously, I'm doing my best to avoid the political conflicts that are so easy to become involved in here on the project. Hope you're doing well also considering the difficulties you were having. Take it easy. (Netscott) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2012 Election Need Your Feedback[edit]

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talkcontribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Citation for Jacque Servin (not Jacques)?[edit]

Hi Scott,

I just ran across the page move. Is there a citation for his name being "Jacque" and not the standard "Jacques"? I couldn't find anything that would verify it.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) he's also listed in the phonebook under "Jacque". I know it's rather odd but that is the name he uses. (Netscott) 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:White ethnicity[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:White ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Poem[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Poem has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netscott and his templated signature. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Italian ethnicity[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Italian ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Restricted-use media list[edit]

An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 10:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks[edit]

Symbol support vote.svgThis user helped promote the article Leona Woods to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Leona Woods, which has recently become a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Netscott! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

.regarding the article SEXUAL DESIRE[edit]

Hello, i was reading the article Sexual desire of which you are a contributor,Sir..Under the para PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING SEXUAL DESIRE i was expecting the find something about the 'time that has passed from the previous ejaculation in men'(being the reason that during the short term abstinence in sexually active men, they feel a high urge to indulge in sexual activities) affects their sexual desire..but there is no mention of the specific thing in the article..i have been anxious about this as i have to continue my research project on libido.. Sir, can you please help me find out the reason for why could i not find this fact here..many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talkcontribs) 08:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:V[edit]

Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Netscott. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:V[edit]

Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ispinfo[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ispinfo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:400 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:400. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)