User talk:Wpscatter

Hi Wpscatter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JalenFolf was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at

Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects

. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anthrenocerus pintado and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jalen Folf (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wpscatter! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jalen Folf (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had that article on my watch-list and noticed that edit by 2406:e003:18c8:5101:add3:fa38:756:c265. Indeed they are correct the city council website sates the fire was in the Trickling filters. All the news out lets I remember reading at time also said it was the Trickling filters.

https://ccc.govt.nz/services/water-and-drainage/wastewater/treatment-plants/christchurch-wastewater-treatment-plant/wastewaterfire/the-situation/

"On 1 November 2021, a large fire destroyed both of the trickling filters at the Christchurch wastewater treatment plant in Bromley."

"The trickling filters are a critical piece of the sewerage treatment process and the damage to them made the treatment process considerably less effective." CoderThomasB (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've reverted my reversion. I'll make sure to double-check in the future. WPscatter ^t/_c 04:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the audacity required for you to make reversions when you're a 20 day old account and don't even have auto confirmed status lmao. 2001:8F8:173D:559C:7C74:A3AE:6A0D:FAC7 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am autoconfimed, but that's irrelevant anyway because you don't need it to revert edits. You're consistently removing reliably sourced content because you believe it shouldn't be in the article, which is against policy. The age of my account doesn't change that. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The well-known edit-warring veteran again approaching the 3RR:

1. [1]
2. [2] - argues in comments, but does not initiate the discussion in Talk to obtain a consensus; also threatens another editor with a ban
3. [3] - again, explicitly refuses to initiate the discussion and seek consensus, says it is someone else's responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9A00:1A90:652A:B29:1215:D9DF (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're leaving this message on my talk page because I left the list entry in my edit. But the other editor is right, if someone reverts your edit, you are the one who should start a discussion on whether it should be added. Constantly re-adding it, even if you feel it should rightly be there, is not the proper way. You should stop adding the entry to the list or you will be blocked very soon. Start a discussion and get consensus. If the consensus is to not add the entry, well, then it will have to go unadded. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me make sure I understand you right. You believe that the onus to initiate the discussion and to seek a consensus is on the Ukrainian editor adding a sourced entry on a bigender Ukrainian LGBTQ activist and NOT on a Russian editor repeatedly trying to delete this entry without providing any sourced info. Why is that? Is it because the first editor is Ukrainian and the 2nd editor is Russian, and Ukrainians are expected to be subservient to Russians? Or do you believe that removal/blanking of the information on Wikipedia does not require a discussion and a consensus, while adding it always needs both? Or, is this a special case because the added person is a LGBTQ bigender activist? 2601:646:9A00:1A90:A56C:B81A:C52C:653B (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who the editor is. You being Ukrainian does not give you a free pass to determine what constitutes notability for a Wikipedia article. If anything, editors with a possible

conflict of interest

should refrain from editing in those areas.

You added an entry to a list, it was reverted, and you're claiming the other editor needs to provide a source for the removal. That just isn't how that works. What would such a source even look like? If the person isn't notable, there won't be any sources about them anyway. Generally,

three reverts

, but sometimes it's obvious that the edits are problematic even before then.

Yes, the onus is on you to

prove that the content you're trying to add is worthy of being added. If you keep adding it without providing that proof, or at least getting consensus, you will eventually be blocked. That's not a threat, I don't have the power to do that. I'm just letting you know that it will happen. Repeatedly adding the same content without properly sourcing or discussing won't be allowed to happen for long. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Celebrity Jeopardy! (2022 TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2022 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

I would like to consolidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Merrick#Awards_and_nominations & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Merrick#Additional_notable_stage_productions, using a list of symbols to indicate which productions were nominated by whom, for what, and which won. Example:

"List: "# Tony Award nominee" and "* Tony Award win, best play"

"* 1958 Romanoff and Juliet (#)"

It would save space, be chronologically clearer and stop being a Tony Award blurb. Cheers! Shir-El too 15:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably suggest consolidating them into a single table of musicals, with an Awards column that can say, for example, "Nominated—Tony Award for Best Musical", "Won—Tony Award for Best Producer of a Musical", or "None" (with colored backgrounds akin to film awards tables, see Schindler's_List#Accolades). The couple of Tony Awards Merrick won unrelated to a play (the 1961 and 1968 Special Tony Awards) could be mentioned in a subsection. The only issue is that it may imply completeness when I get the feeling the plays listed currently aren't a complete list? But that could be solved with either completing it with the rest of his plays, or if that's not possible for whatever reason, a simple note.

Out of curiosity, why are you asking me about this? I've never edited that page or even anything related to Tony Awards or musicals, I think. WPscatter ^t/_c 01:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, AFC/R is intended to be used by users that don't have the technical ability to create redirects themselves. I'd definitely say the redirect is valid, and if you had any concerns, it might be better to bring them up elsewhere, but AFC/R would certainly work as well. Otherwise, I'd say be

WP:BOLD and go for it! Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

– dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I was going to use the one from the relevant section of the Culinary Diplomacy article but had to change to a more recent source. Vacosea (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of us that check out recent changes. At any given time there's probably a few dozen eyes on it, so any edits that should be reverted usually are pretty quickly. As a general rule, sort out the sources before adding content to an article rather than adding it to be sourced later—there's no rush to get things added to articles! Out of curiosity, why did you have to use a more recent source? If the one from the other article is outdated feel free to update it as well. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found out during the middle of my edit that the old link is dead, and there is no easily accessible replacement. The other article is also being updated. Vacosea (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wpscatter. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha too quick! I was about to revert until it said someone else already did it. Fork99 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wpscatter, you must AGF and not make personal attacks. The quote on my userpage is a quote from Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia. Don't get offended at me. Try to get him blocked from Wikipedia for expressing such a thing about Trump. His opinion is the mainstream RS opinion. Editors are allowed to have their own personal opinions, as long as they are not advocacy of fringe opinions or creep into article content. I've been here since 2003, so you might want to back off and think twice about the wisdom of attacking other editors who might know a bit more about what is allowed and not allowed here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean, I'm not sure where I attacked you. The only thing I "accused" you of was being biased, which we all are in some ways. I never said or even implied that you should be blocked from Wikipedia. I continue to believe your conduct in that move request was inappropriate. I'm not sure how to express that in a more civil way than I did, and yet it was removed. I genuinely don't know how I should handle that situation; I certainly thought ANI would be a bit extreme so I just made a comment instead. WPscatter ^t/_c 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you admit, you accused me of being biased, but since all of us are biased, that's a personal attack. Don't cast stones when you live in a glass house. You discussed me, and not the topic. You questioned my motives, and that is the type of personal attack that directly violates AGF. You implied that editors must not express their own POV, and that holding such POV makes them unsuited to edit certain topics. If we applied your reasoning to all editors, such as Jimmy Wales, who said Trump was a lunatic (and you conveniently didn't mention it was Wales, not me, who said that), we'd only have a bunch of hypocrites here who hid their own POV.

It's actually a good thing that people are honest here. I welcome scrutiny of my edits. If you see my own personal POV creep into an edit, rather than me just documenting the POV of the source, then feel free to contact me and I'll happily work toward a better solution. I am far from perfect, as my user page makes clear. I discuss this there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I understand now how I flouted AGF and I apologize. I still don't understand how "Donald Trump is a lunatic"—inarguably a

polemical statement

, however true it may be—belongs on a user page, regardless of who said it.

@Valjean, I don't believe holding certain POVs makes one unsuited to edit topics, but it's not unheard of to block editors from editing certain topics if their bias does appear to affect their conduct. I do believe that you inadvertently misconstrued several arguments during the discussion due to your bias, which is ultimately why I felt the need to comment. I certainly never planned on arguing that you should be blocked in any capacity, but thought it pertinent that others in the discussion were aware. I should have left a note on your talk page instead and I shouldn't have questioned your motives rather than your actions. Again, I apologize. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally accept your apology. I don't think you're acting in bad faith, just a bit misguided. That's all. Comments on an article talk page can

poison the well

against another editor, and that's not nice, so we need to be careful. Again, I'm not perfect in this regard. I have made exactly that mistake, so I'm speaking from experience.

As far as "misconstrued several arguments", I have already explained that I did not do that. I read Melanie's comments and understood them, but I didn't buy her reasoning as a legitimate justification for still using "veracity" in the title.

When a word that means one thing is often used in situations to describe the opposite, I understand how that works. I understand perfectly what she means. But here, a title stands alone. The word implies he's truthful, but the title should mean the opposite because it stands alone. We can't be using the fact that "veracity" is often used in situations to cast doubt on someone's veracity as a justification for using it in the title.

We can't expect readers to perform that form of mental gymnastics. They won't. They'll read the words as an implication that Trump's statements are generally veracious, but the article clearly documents how rarely they are. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching 3-Amino-1-propanol. It's a many-years-long LTA. DMacks (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scatter! Regarding your recent advice (". . . you are able to do most of these things yourself") on the Help Desk to an IP editor asking for help on the Middleton Family article.

You're not wrong in a general sense, but we know this user (who has an account but usually avoids using it because of past berations) from a long way back. She appears to be an elderly Australian nun who has problems with using the input device(s) she has access to, and has reached a low ceiling with understanding the technicalities of Wiki-coding etc. and spotting entry and coding errors in citations and the like.

Trying to get her to develop more wiki-fu is futile. However she's good at researching sources and adding text, and makes extensive contributions on a certain range of topics (that and her prose style makes her posts readily recognisable), so we've found from experience it's easier just to make corrections and carry out minor tasks (usually both appropriate and quite straightforward) when she asks.

I hope you're enjoying being involved in Wikipedia. I've been at it for around 20 years now, so there must be something about it that keeps the likes of us around! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I certainly wasn't trying to be mean about it or anything. Thanks for letting me know. WPscatter ^t/_c 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you had said you were interested in polishing the

Submitter came on #-en-help and wanted to know if there was any particular cause for delay. Just thought I'd nudge you. DS (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a little busy and it slipped through. Thanks for the poke, I'll make a point to get to it next week if at all possible. Apologies! WPscatter ^t/_c 19:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Wondering if this draft was submitted for re-review? Nicolas Vincent La Traverse (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that your revert of my edit was a judgment call, and that you recognized my edit as being in good faith. However, I disagree with the logic of your revert reason. The replacement of Link's arm is not a minor game element, but is highly visible throughout the game as his Ultrahand ability, a power that originally belonged to Rauru, and is only usable by Link because his arm was replaced. The new arm itself also very noticeably has different complexion and nails like those of Rauru. And the arm replacement can be considered a hand transplantation, which can occur above or below the elbow, and whose article itself is categorized under Category:Organ transplantation. Even though the hand (or the arm) are not one organ, they are a series of organs and tissues being transplanted together. Then, in the game's ending, a more powerful use of the Recall ability restores Link's original arm from before he lost it, again reminding the player that, for the entire game, Link had been using what had originally been someone else's arm. None of this seems particularly minor or non-notable, especially compared to the inclusion criteria in other fiction-related categories like Category:Video games about impact events. I ask you reconsider your reversion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all (as you know) I'm not the arbiter of

Tears of the Kingdom

and I'm not sure why you chose to post this on my talk page rather than the article's. It seems like the discussion might be a lot more productive there so other editors may offer their opinions as well.

Anyway, fair point about an arm transplant being a subcategory of organ transplant and I accept that my reasoning on that front was poor. I'm still inclined to come down on the side of the category not being appropriate for the article. Would you not agree that "organ transplant" generally refers to a medical procedure? As I recall, Link gets the new arm painlessly and instantly because of some kind of magic. I was

WP:ASTONISHed

by your edit because the events of the game are so drastically different from what I generally understand an "organ transplant" to be, even though it technically could be called one.

That plus the fact that the transplant is barely mentioned beyond the beginning and end of the game lead me to stand by the revert, though again I acknowledge your points about the transplanted arm being a focus throughout the game. I suppose the real question is whether the category refers to common usage (i.e. medical) or to any time a body part is replaced with another, including via various sci-fi or fantasy means. I would lean towards the former, but happy to be proven wrong by consensus. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never specifically considered whether to go to the article's talk page or to your talk page—in the end the only thought that occurred to me was to go to your talk page, but you have a point that it's better to seek a wider consensus about this. In hindsight, I may have been subconsciously intimidated by the prospect of having an open debate concerning the article for a popular video game, as that can have a tendency of bringing fan drama out of the woodwork. You were already an editor that gave a reason for your revert, which already better satisfies the interests of intelligent discussion than so many random user edits of uncertain and sometimes questionable wisdom. Perhaps I was reluctant to make this a larger issue than it already was.

And I never automatically assumed that an organ transplant refers exclusively to a formal medical procedure, and focused more on the need and the solution: Link's arm was wounded and he lost it. He needed a new arm. A new arm was given to him. Link had the use of an arm to replace what he lost. It seemed to fit the basic non-technical description of an organ transplant. And since Link awoke already having the new arm, there's no reason to presume there was no sci-fi or magical equivalent of a medical procedure. Rauru was a Zonai in command of both his own light-elemental magic and advanced Zonai technology. Since the transplantation itself was not seen, it's left to the player's imagination what exactly was involved. In areas like this, it's not always easy to judge what kind of assumption can objectively be considered more broad or more narrow, so I...use my best judgment.

As with

WP:BOLD about the applicability of Category:Organ transplantation in fiction. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks in advance for your help, Amanda MandaQoP (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me here, I wouldn't have seen the help desk post otherwise. I responded over there. WPscatter ^t/_c 23:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MandaQoP (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wpscatter,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages .

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wpscatter:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]