User talk:Discott: Difference between revisions

Archived talk pages can be viewed here.

• To see discussions from September 2010 to November 2015 see: User:Discott/talk archive 1
• To see discussions from December 2015 to November 2017 see: User:Discott/talk archive 2
• To see discussions from December 2017 to February 2019 see: User:Discott/talk archive 3
• To see discussions from March 2017 to May 2022 see: User:Discott/talk archive 4

The article Metlife Centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable building

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 197 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I suppose it is now becoming a bit long and janky thanks to all the competition notifications I get.--Discott (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Discott, Hope you been well spamming everyone with Wikimania 2022 invites. I just want to enquire about Wikimedia ZA Membership. I recently filled out the Google form and want to know how I can make a crypto currency donation and What I could do to help. TapticInfo (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TapticInfo, thank you for the enquirey and I see that you have made an application to join the chapter which is great! Shupai should have gotten back to you confirming your membership by now. If not then please let me know. The application process is straight forward in that it simply involves filing out a short form and making an annual donation of any amount to the chapter. The donation acts as the membership due. You are more than welcome to make the donation in crypto. The best way to help is just to get involved in chapter activities by volunteering to help out with events, attending meetups (it has been great seeing you in them), and/or offering to organise your own Wiki related events. --Discott (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Discott:, Thanks for getting back to me. I haven’t received a Email from Shupai yet. TapticInfo (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again, Shupai Has reached out on my talk page, I think there was an error with me filling out the Google form, but I’m still waiting for an email and where to donate. TapticInfo (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:AEEI company logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Discott. Your recent edits seem to be quite one-sided because the media reports you cite have some glaring inaccuracies. Since Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, here is the statement from UCT rebutting several of the media claims. It is also interesting that her recent African Education Medal was not mentioned at all, but only inaccurate information which may paint her in an unfavorable light. Ear-phone (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu Ear-phone (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone, thank you for pointing out the rebuttal and the need to add it to the relevant page. I did try to be neutral by adding statements the VC's self proclaimed supporters made but I had not seen the the UCT rebuttal by the time I made those additions. I also feel that adding citations from additional sources would be good for the article and NPOV because currently the section is too heavily reliant on the Daily Maverick. Please do add the new citations you have mentioned. I can also do it but I feel it would be better for NPOV if someone else also contributed to this section. As for inaccuracies within the media sources (mostly Daily Maverick I assume), beyond the ones I read about (and disputed/refuted by the Daily Maverick) in this article (which I read this morning) I am not aware of any in these sources. That is why I think it needs more people than just me editing that article and section as there will be more people picking up on these sorts of issues. --Discott (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Discott. Thank you for the links. I had already added the Africa Medal Award. My primary question is: Why do you find (contested) prejudicial content on the UCT Vice-Chancellor despite the fact that there is bona fide (non-contested) favorable content as well? Why do you expect someone else to present a neutral point of view, while you edit in a particular way?

Wikipedia has a policy regarding Biographies of living persons, which states that, "Contentious material about living persons...must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The section on controversy is arguably the longest, also detailing events from her first term, yet this is a UCT Vice-Chancellor who was re-appointed to a second term resoundingly via an extensive consultative process.

@Bobbyshabangu

Ear-phone (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone, It seems you misunderstood me. I apologize if I might have been unclear in my previous reply. I do not (as you said) "expect someone else to present a neutral point of view." I always try to maintain NPOV in my edits as I thought I made clear in my previous reply. I am simply recognising that the pursuit of NPOV requires a collective effort. That things that might seem NPOV to some people might not seem NPOV to others. In reply to your point on the biographies section I would like to point out that the full section of that policy states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." The section in question clearly was not "unsourced" and I do not believe that that section was poorly sourced, indeed it cites multiple sources. As such it wild be improper to remove it without first discussing the issue on the talk page. I don't see how the possibility that the Controversy section of the subject's page is the longest is relevant here. I saw that there was an issue of public interest being talked about in the public in multiple reliable sources (or sources usually regarded as reliable) and I decided to make a contribution that I thought would improve the relevant article based upon that source. I did so in good faith and in the belief that it was notable and in the public interest. I make these sorts of edits all the time as do thousands of other Wikipedia editors on a regular basis. I still believe these references are good sources, both in general and on the subject at hand here. If you disagree with that then we will need to discuss, on the article talk page, why you believe the sources I used are bad or otherwise untrustworthy.--Discott (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]