Open main menu


I've seen you about quite recently, and I never had a chance to say hi before. Obviously, I can't say hi at the redirect. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Nice to meet you. It looks like we have a similar outlook on the way Commons ought to work. — Scott talk 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


Completely out of topic question: a "decade" in english is a period of 10 years, ie a "décennie" in french. "décade", in french, means a period of ten days. Is there a word in english that means "period of 10 days". Asavaa (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I don't believe there is; we have "fortnight" for a period of two weeks, that is to say 14 days, but not a word for 10. Perhaps your useful word is a legacy of the calendrier républicain français? :) — Scott talk 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is: there were three décades' in a month. I reckon the word is probably not very usefull, although I know it from the book Ten Days' Wonder, that became La Décade prodigieuse in french. Asavaa (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr WashingEdit

Lesson learned - next time, upload an image first to Flickr, have it licensed that way, post it on Wiki, then terminate the account like so many others. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The joys of a trivially-gamed system, hey? I'm never going to resort to that, but boy it would be easy to do. — Scott talk 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've fought to have such things prevented for 4 years and Wiki has gone the opposite way. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


If they signed [1], then they agreed to have their IRC quotes made public. FYI. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).pngEdit

File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

אדם אדום (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition in EnglandEdit

Forgive me if I don't see the point of making such a fine distinction as you are doing. Meanwhile, there is plenty of proper, less pointless, work to be done under Category:Scotland. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Then go and do it. — Scott talk 02:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. I'm looking at the CFD and don't see consensus for the change. More seriously I think the premise of the change (to split demolition from warfare from natural disasters etc) is somewhat flawed. Consider the following scenarios:

  1. A building in good condition is demolished.
  2. A building is subject to arson, making it not economic to retore, but structurally sound, and is demolished.
  3. A building is subject to arson, making it structurally unsafe but still essentially in one piece, and is demolished.
  4. A building is subject to arson, significantly damaging the structure, and the remainder is demolished.
  5. A building is completely destroyed by arson.

Which of the buildings were destroyed by arson, and which were demolished? Only in the first case is the demolition not triggered by another physical event, and even there there will have been a cause (eg redevelopment of area). And at the other extreme, significant demolition work took place at the World Trade Center site before re-development could take place.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I also see significant opposition to moving "Demolished buildings" to "Buildings destroyed by demolition" because it is likely most of the items in the Demolished building cats are not those actually "destroyed by demolition". eg Category:Dunsland House was destroyed by fire, not demolition. A safer move would be to redirect "Demolished buildings in X" to "Destroyed buildings in X", and allow the by-type tree to develop under it if anyone cares.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If they were destroyed by fire, then they shouldn't have been put solely under "demolished buildings" in the first place. The fault is with whoever originally categorized them, because to list them only as "demolished" is both pedantic and misleading. Unfortunately, in the case of your example of Dunsland House, that seems to have been you. If you know that a building was destroyed in a fire, go categorize it that way. Nobody is stopping you.
If a building burned and then the rest was demolished, then it was both destroyed by fire and destroyed by demolition. If you want to be any more picky than that, you're going to have to start creating categories with "completely" and "partially" in the name. Again, if you want to do that, nobody is stopping you. — Scott talk 02:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking at this more closely - the issue is rather more basic. Category:Destroyed buildings in the United Kingdom is the parent category for these things. We should not 'skip a generation' on the way down, so Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition in Liverpool should be the child of both Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition in England and Category:Destroyed buildings in Liverpool.
Please redirect any demolished building cats to the destroyed building cat NOT to destroyed by demolition, unless the destroyed cat already existed. Incorrect placing as demolished is an easy error to make, especially in the absence of the broader cat. If anyone then wants to identify buildings as specifically demolished, they can do that. That will create a more robust tree for all destroyed buildings and excise any errors appearing in categories specifically about demolition.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
In line with this - I have moved the content of Buildings destroyed by demolition in England, to Destroyed buildings in England. If you can identify any of the files as specifically demolished and want to categorise as such, nobody is stopping you.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello Scott, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Scott".