User talk:Scottanon

Warned my fist vandal today. Let's see if I come to regret it. Scottanon 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the vandalised page on December 23, 2005 "Socttanon is a pedophilic, beastality loving homosexual who plans to rape all dogs to free them from the truth. He is also a proud faggot of the Liberal Party of Canada." I finally get my name in print, and they can't even spell it right. Oh, well.

Your vandal

I've blocked the most recent one for 24 hours. I also noticed your request for semi protection. I'd like to wait and see if he switches IPs and comes back. If he does, let me know and I'll semi protect both Egale Canada and CBC Newsworld. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have little doubt he will return, but discretion is the better part of valor. Scottanon 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our anon vandal is back. Any change of getting semi protection on CBC Newsworld? Thanks Scottanon 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substing copyvio

Please see my reply at Template talk:Copyvio#subst:the date?. -Splash^talk 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix it. Scottanon 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Spoiler

I reverted because that site simply repeats the info present in the plot summary present in the article. I didn't really think it was needed for that reason. The Wookieepedian 17:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as we're discussing it like this, it's not a revert war. ;) But seriously, the reason the Star Wars Wiki article is allowed to stay is because their take on the films are different, since they're allowed to tell it in-universe, and can give details and features that a general interest encyclopedia like this one does not have. The Wookieepedian 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like The Movie Spoiler. Thanks, Scottanon, for putting the links. I restored the two links and have often put links myself. I use Template:msp (backlinks edit).--Patrick 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use photos

Hey, could you please send the permission you have from Barry Boor to permissions-en@wikimedia.org along with a link to the following three images:

I have listed the images for speedy deletion but once the permission is received they will be undeleted. Yonatan ^(talk) 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:BRMLogo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BRMLogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper model article

The paper model article's external links section had become a mini trade directory, complete with edit wars over whose sites were to be included or excluded. Use of external links sections in this way is not allowed, and a sampling of the links provided showed no significant informational content other than being a collection of links to paper model companies. Accordingly, I've now removed all external links. Please do not restore the long list of external links. Instead, please add individual links only if necessary, and ensure that they point to pages with actual informative content on paper modelling, as opposed to simply at the root of a commercial site. -- The Anome (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but the constant removal without explanation or judgement, especially after the 10th edit, seemed more like vandalism to me then a constructive edit. And I was not the only one reverting the edits. If I had the time I would have edited the links myself. As it is there is nothing to stop another over long list from being created that will then have to be gone through and cleaned up. Scottanon (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Surteeslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Surteeslogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used Template:Logo rationale to clarify fair use. Deleted dispute tag because it seemed like the proper course. If this is incorrect let me know. Thanks Scottanon (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Veritas (constructor)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Talk:Veritas (constructor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:Talk:Veritas (constructor)|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator

Hi Scottanon - thanks for your careful attentions to Gladiator; before you revert my reversion of your excision, I just thought I'd let you know it was not vandalism; it's verbatim to source (Alison Futrell's sourcebook IIRC). But it's very nice to be read by someone who cares! Best wishes. Haploidavey (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Talladega Gran Prix Raceway for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Talladega Gran Prix Raceway, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talladega Gran Prix Raceway until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:ANfitting.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scottanon. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scottanon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scottanon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]