User talk:Doc glasgow/11Nov05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive, talk to me at User talk:Doc glasgow

Contents

Re. St Nicholas Pre-School Playgroup

  • Latest Comment OK - creating this was a mistake. I din't think it was a violation of WP:POINT as I wasn't making a point, but conducting an experiment (see below) - and I didn't think it was really disruptive. But I am willing to accept the consensus of others that I should not have done this. The article should now be deleted (and I'd welcome someone using WP:IAR and doing so). I apologise, without reservation, to eveyone who feels I have wasted their time. I leave my earlier case below as a record. --Doc (?) 13:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


OK, if you are an irate fellow user come to chide me about this article, let me explain myself.

I created this as a test case (which is possible a breach of WP:POINT but my intentions are good-faith.)

(Actually, no, I'm not making a point - I'm testing a case, which is different)

IMO Schools debates are poisoning the atmosphere on AfD. Although I don't really care either way, I'm just sick of these unhealthy, unconstructive 'debates'. (Actually they are not really 'debates'; just repetitive partisan, trenchant warfare, which is persuading no-one. And they are not really polls either, since the 'no-consensus' (default keep) result is predictable from the outset. They prove nothing; damage the community's good-will, and waste time that could be spent on writing good articles.

My 'point' in creating this playgroup article was to try to settle the 'notability' question, which lies at the root of the problem. My playgroup article is verifiable, NPOV, and it is NOT an ad (as some are wrongly saying), but it is extremely non-notable.

  • If this article is deleted, it can only be on grounds of notability - ergo the community consensus is that notability is a deletion criterion. The question then would then be the level of notability not the fact – and we can stop arguing ‘notability is not a criterion’.
  • If this article survives, then there is simply 'no consensus' to delete, even such an unimportant article, on grounds of notability. Thus nominations of schools etc, on those grounds, should cease.

I hope that the result (and I'm not too partisan in minding which it is) will clarify things. And perhaps curtail some future arguments. (It will settle things at least for me.) Doc (?) 12:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments and complaints

  • Please show consideration for the time of others. Also, please realize your test means nothing, and shows nothing. You fail to understand there isn't an objective agreed working definition of notability in wikipedia. I beleive in using nobility, but am often wary of campaigns to delete all things *some* people find non-notable. In an off-line analogy: I beleive in morality, but don't like moralizers who wish to stamp-out all immoral things in moral crusades. Those advocating deletion of non-notable things have no more interest in notability, than anybody else. Take a look at any user advocating deletion of something for "nn", and they're as likely to be creating a trivial (in the eyes of others) article as anybody else. Conversations without agreed definitions of terms, are genreally pointless. --rob 12:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've replied on your talk page (edits crossed) --Doc (?) 12:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, you probably wrote that while I was writing. I don't mean to be rude, and am sorry if I was. One thing that was of concern, is I've been trying to identify where the "border point" is on this whole AFD-thing. I would like the principal of not AFD-ing things that will be guarenteed to be kept, and not creating articles that are guarenteed be deleted. Ocassional good-faith "test" cases are ok, but in limited number (and we've exceed the limits lately). People just have to be realistic. There's all sorts of articles I wish I could create (but don't) and all sorts of articles I wish I could delete (but don't try to). I think the best approach to "peace", is to be realistic. We'll always have fights on a "border-line" point (micro-elem stubs were the last border). But, when people nominate verifiable high schools, or create preschools, then we end up fighting all over the place, in pointless battles. Also, I notice the sheer volume of AFDs has meant nobody's looking at articlees anymore. Crucial issues, such as verifiability, are ignored entirely, as people rehash the same old debate about "notability". --rob 12:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I totaly agree - I tend slightly towards deleting schools - but I wish folk would accept, after 100 or so nc results, that there is no-consensus to delete a school solely for notability. Don't ask questions to which you already know the answer - that is timewasting. I genuinely did not know whether this article would be deleted or nc-kept when I created it. Doc (?) 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that the only precedent is going to be that articles made to make a point end up deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, although I'm not sure what point I would be trying to make. --Doc (?) 12:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "A consensus on the bottom tier of allowable school-related articles must be formed"? "We must make a final decision on what notability is and if it should be applied as a deletion criteria"? Those are both points to argue, and you're trying to argue them experimentally instead of directly.
        I'm not gonna open an RFC over this, by any means, as I don't see it as siginificantly disruptive, but it's not going to accomplish your stated goal. Even if the article is deleted, it won't be a useful precedent, because of your reasons. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm still searching for some notable alumni. --Doc (?) 13:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure what question you are trying to settle with this experiment. AfD works for hammering out consensus of what should be included and what should not be included. Lengthy debates are not a fault, they are part of the process. Complaints about the process being subverted as soon as schools are involved should go to Schoolwatch; this isn't a fault of AfD, it's a fault with that project.
  • The thing that AfD is extremely poor at is dealing with factual inaccuracy.

Good grief - those are painful! We keep hearing complains about 'against policy' deletions - now we have 'against policy' retentions. Agh. My concusion is that VfD (if not broke) needs at very least heavy tweeking. The obvious truth is that people don't read articles, or vote on thing they don't understand is correct. The tribal voting 'keep because I'm an inclusionist' or 'delete because I'm not' takes over - and brains are not engaged. This was proven to me by the Authentic Matthew debate some time ago - complex technical issues that confuse even folk with theology PhD's, I said it didn't exist - and the article was original research - and it got kept because of moronic votes like 'sounds notable to me'. Schools are a different matter - there is no consensus to delete schools just for being schools - thus don't nominate them on that ground. Doc (?) 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

other school issues

Hi Doc, I have read your comments here and share your frustration. I no longer bother voting on the school deletion threads since I find the whole issue divisive. Although, I will comment from time to time. Even though I have tried to make constructive comments they invariably fall on deaf ears. One thing I find particularly frustrating is that the keep at all costs crowd will often clean up a school listed for deletion but not always link it to the community or, visa versa, reference it from the appropriate school district/community. I find their claims hollow when I do not see them creating the network of information that will make the school contributions useful and more to the point visible. I have brought this up before but there was silence from the keepers. It seems to me they spend an unhealthy amount of time fighting the deletions. I think your proposal to set up a separate school wiki would solve that problem and allow them to focus their considerable energy into the positive contribution of setting up the school network/pedia.

With regard to current their contributions they seem to be mostly damage repair, although I have not researched this thoroughly. I have noticed that what really happens on these nominations is that total garbage is nominated and then a devoted band of “keep at all costs” members from schoolwatch come in and write it properly. I think it is great that they do this but there are two problems:

  • Rewritten school articles are probably not monitored that carefully, so there could be an increase in sophisticated vandalism. It would not be hard to change (pseudo update) these school articles with bogus information. I have tried to make this point here.
  • Garbage school articles that are not nominated do not get cleaned up. It seems that the schoolwatch characters use the deletion nomination as a heads up for starting to improve the article.

Personally, I am surprised they are not more aggressive at cleaning these articles up before they are nominated for deletion, that would be more constructive. They even have a list of new schools created but seem slow to respond to the poor one line efforts that most begin as on wikipedia. I suspect they might enjoy waiting for the deletion nomination before starting the clean up process since it allows them to score points with regard to how many schools are kept vs. deleted after they are nominated for deletion. They do seem to keep score and are quite vocal about it. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"your proposal to set up a separate school wiki would solve that problem" I just realised that this was not your proposal. Sorry for the confusion. David D. (Talk) 00:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea though - but count me out. You're analysis above makes a lot of sense btw, I tend to think - why not keep the school it's not a bad article after all. But that's not the point the keeping means all the other bad one's are kept - and if they are not checked for accuracy then the wii suffers. But I still think the debate itself is doing more harm. --Doc (?) 00:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You can say that again, I hardly bother with the schools stuff any more, there are so many other important improvements that need to be made to make wikipedia an acceptable source of information. The accuracy statement you make above is so true too. I wonder how long it will take the sophisticated vandals to realise there are certain edits that can be made to an article that can pass as good faith edits? May it is already happening. If they figure it out then a lot of low profile articles, such as schools, will end up being completely wrong. Such errors can only be bad for wikipedia as a whole. I wonder whom among schoolwatch are actively maintaining and watching all these schools? David D. (Talk) 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Test of Mllywchilyntnjnskkwyll

Mllywchilyntnjnskkwyll is my home town and I think it deserves an article. I won't rest until I get it! Mllywchilyntnjnskkwyll 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

WtF - so you AFD GWBush? Stop trolling! --Doc (?) 20:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Mounds Park Academy Afd

Hi, Doc Glasgow - You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mounds Park Academy about the appropriateness of the nomination, and I acknowledge you are probably right. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mounds Park Academy for a more detailed reply. Thanks for the feedback, and I will continue to "live and learn" Cheers, LiniShu 15:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Added above at same time you were replying on Afd talk page :) LiniShu 15:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


User:Angela edit

Hi,

I just put a redirect from User:Angela (troll) to User:Angela, as these seemed to be the same user, although I may have been wrong it seems that it has been at the top of the wanted page for too long a time and needed sorting. Please look in to this for me, thankyou.

Kind Regards
Mark Rawson

Hmm, try taking it up with User:Angela and see how har you get! --Doc (?) 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Test messages

Shouldn't we be trying to take the high road? Rather than seeing some porn and saying "listen ass, keep it up and you're banned", we should not take notice to or encourage their behavior. We should encourage good behavior. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:45

Perhaps - but let's first discuss major changes to templates that are widely used. --Doc (?) 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:Test. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 00:04

Sorry

I'm so sorry, please forgive me. :'( :'( I didn't know! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!

With love, Morte

Apologies

I'm sorry, my blanking of Portsmouth F.C. was accidental. I thought I was editing a section, not the whole page, so I hit ctrl-A and pasted in my new text and inadvertently wiped the rest of the article out. It was a mistake, I assure you. Sorry once again. Qwghlm 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We all make mistakes no problem. --Doc (?) 10:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not protect the main page featured article

Please see user:Raul654/protection →Raul654 21:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an oversight - I must read the mainpage! Mea Culpa. --Doc (?) 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How does one handle a suspect page?

The page Ariel Odell was originally posted by a Nymphetta, who has been rampant in vandalizing recently. When I orginally saw the article, I tried to verify, but the Ontario Legislative site was down. I could not find web refs. I placed a "verify" tag on the page, which was removed. It is now up and the subject is not listed. I have posted a note on Nympettas talk page asking for verification. I suspect that the posting is a hoax. What is the proper procedure to address this?

No worries; I've speedied it (and the redirect from Heather Odell, too) as a vandal's hoax. I can verify that there is no Ariel Odell (or any Odell, or anything anywhere close) in the Ontario legislature. If you want to keep an eye on the article's creator, he/she/it has also made some anonymous edits as 72.141.27.231 (talk • contribs). It's a Roger's cable modem IP, probably from the Toronto area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what this is about - but it looks as though it is sorted. --Doc (?) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wackymacs

What happened was, as I explained, I was reverting Idorunet's removal of Private Butcher's vote, but in the process reverted while people were adding votes. I then added the missing Support votes back, but didn't notice that three Neutral votes were missed, as well. --Nlu 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem - all sorted now. --Doc (?) 08:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

pls

it was not nonsense, what are you talkingabout. i updated my own userpage i was just logked out

If you are using an IP, without edit summaries, it will often be difficult to ditinguish your edits from vandalsim. Sorry for the mistake (PS please sign your posts) --Doc (?) 08:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RfA, I have already stated that I will ensure better use of edit summaries immediately in the Comments section of the RfA. I have also already read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, before you suggested I do so. The day I tagged two articles for speedy delete that should have gone through the AFD process (which they indeed did in the end), I did because I did not have the time. Sorry about that, you might have noticed it hasn't happened since. Thanks for voting, and I hope you change to Support if you wish. — Wackymacs 07:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done. Be good. Doc (?) 23:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Prishtina

user:Getoar has made a serious error on his user's page. The city of Prishtina is in Serbia and Montenegro, not Albania. HolyRomanEmperor 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A user is entitle to have almost whatever they wish on their userpage, whether correct, erronious, or POV. Please do not change it for them - it may well be considered trolling. --Doc (?) 22:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Admin

I'm just kind of in and out for another week, perhaps then, if you wish to nominate me, I would be honored...I have been holding off on the Admin thing for a bit and it seems one other person also wishes to nominate me. Maybe in a week or two if you wish...thanks for the vote of confidence!--MONGO 00:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - let me know when you're back on it (unless someone beats me to it) --Doc (?) 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-using a convenient section header here - I do understand your suggestiong that I withdraw. I'd prefer to wait until the weight of "oppose" names collapses under it's own weight. ^_^ All kidding aside, I'm almost always graceful under fire as long as Tony is not involved, and actually most of the time even then. I'm prepared for the severe ego-bruising that may result, although N75's "oppose" coming in while the nom was still in my user space was a suprise. He pulled together some of my worst quotes with admirable alacrity. As to the possible enjoyment some may gather from my skewering, I can't think like that. I still believe that there are no "sides" here, and that any imagined differences can be sorted out.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your call. But remember that sometimes graceful retreat is a useful strategy. I'd strongly advise you, if it goes as I forsee, not to take it to the bitter end. A thick skin can end up looking like indifference to community criticism - and that's not an admirable trait in an admin ;-). If you can show that you cn take criticism and quickly accept its implications without loosing it - you will go some way to redemption in many eyes. Doc (?) 15:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't intended to wait until they put me out of my misery, but just long enough to show I understood I should suffer. - brenneman(t)(c) 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this:

While it's clear (and not altogether suprising) that this nomination will fail, I'd like it to be kept open for at least another day.
David Gerard referred to this very early on as an RfC, either in jest or as a merry accident. It has already been valuable to me in that capacity, and if I could beg a slight allowance, I'd like for it to continue to do so for a short time. I'd also like to thank everyone who has commented, and encourage others to continue to do. This has proved more beneficial than I could have imagined.
brenneman(t)(c) 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

?

Hey wait, you never volunteered to be my exit manager!

Looks fine - you might add that the criticism is heard and understood. (But that's just me who is always impressed by mea culpa). --Doc (?) 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought that was clear from context. I think I'm going to have to work on spelling things out. I'm noticing a trend here where what I thought was crystal clear turns out to have been, well, not. That's a tacit criticism in several of these comments... is it sycophantish to enumerate the things I'll work on? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaron

  • Radiant!, I actually think Aaron could be a good admin, but the timing of this RfA is awful. At any time, this would have brought out the worst type of partisan warfare in some, but two weeks after that incident many of us who would otherwise have supported will be unable to do so. I just opposed User:purplefeltangel for vandalism three months ago, it would be hipocrisy to support this now. This will fail, and some of Aaron's partisan critics will enjoy it. You ought to have waited a month - Aaron should consider withdrawing this for the time being. Doc (?) 14:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You are absolutely right, and I have informed Aaron that his RFA is likely to fail, but he asked me to go ahead anyway. My principle is that if I believe that someone is an admin, and I turn out to be mistaken, they deserve a nomination if they want it. It is not my business to protect people from themselves. But thanks for the heads-up. Radiant_>|< 15:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this for reasons that I hope will be obvious. Prior to the sock puppetry, I'd have said that Aaron would make a reasonably good administrator, trustworthy and reliable. The sock puppetry in itself was very limited and obviously just an error of judgement. What happened after that, was different. Aaron's evasiveness and continued bad faith made the task of getting to the bottom of the matter unnecessarily unpleasant, until he confessed to MONGO. Knowing how to extract yourself from a hole without causing further damage, and being able to think fast enough to do so, is a useful skill for an admin, but actually not all of our admins are that adept, this isn't a fatal flaw.

Obviously I have personal issues with Aaron but I never let those get in the way of judgements like this--being able to get along with everybody on the wiki is a rare talent and certainly not required for adminship. Had I felt able to vote in this I would have voted neutral and endorsed the views of the others who wish to have the opportunity to watch Aaron's further progress, in the hope of being able to endorse his adminship at a future date. But for the socking and the bad judgements immediately following, I would trust Aaron with the mop and broom. The question hanging over Aaron is a real one, but not a fatal one. It can be solved by the passage of time and the continued demonstration of behavior and skills worthy of an administrator. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not always totally impressed by your attitude in dealing with your critics - but I have to say, your response here does you a lot of credit. However, even as I spoke of 'partisan critics enjoying the failure', I somehow suspected that you wouldn't actually be one of them. In actual fact, most of the comments in the RfA have been fair, measured if not downright generous, so perhaps I should have assumed a lot more wiki-good-faith from the start. It's just with the acrimony of some debates, that can be difficult. It is nice to see some wikilove breaking out. --Doc (?) 23:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm actually upset by this, but not for the facile reason: I've given Tony reason to be irked with me on plenty of occasions, and it disturbs me to hear that feels irked for something that I hadn't intended.
    When I look over the discussions at my talk, MONGO's, and David's, I can understand that one can choose to see this as denial, but that one could also equally choose to see it as a fairly uncivil discussion about the when's and where's of appropiate sock-checking. Perhaps that that point was not as obvious as I supposed. Of course, my perception was coloured by the fact that for me there was no "hole", as I knew I was guilty, and took that fact as read. Glad of the chance to clear that up.
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Look, Aaron to be honest, I've never read these discussions and I'm not about to. Whatever you were trying to achieve by accepting the RfA, it is now done. If you read carefully, I think you will find that most people (including Tony) are saying you are a good guy whose made one mistake (or maybe two), and if it doesn't reoccur they will support you very soon. Given what you did, it is obvious that you have built up a lot of counterweighing goodwill in other areas - and all credit to you. But don't push it - this is begining to look silly. I know you have genuinely been trying to build bridges with Tony, and I think his comments above represent some building from his direction. Take whatever olive branch he is offering. And now, do the peace of the whole community a favour and, withdraw the RfA immediately, before someone says something regrettable. --Doc (?) 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Whew. I sense that couldn't have come too soon for you! That actually proceeded with a good deal of civility all around, happily. Really, I can't thank you enough for that last, um, twelve hours or so. You've given more of your time (and your public face) to me than I think I deserved. I won't apply a happy face or a chocolate cake to your user page because the servers appears to be running on pure molasses, but the thought is there. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitman Middle School (Seattle, Washington)

I think you might well have a point in your closing remark. Someone has reverted your closure, but I have at least reinserted the remark. Factions, eh? Can't live with them, can't live without them. Chris talk back 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PS - I shamelessly stole and modified your AmE-0 babel box for display on my user page. Modified, of course, since people regularly confuse the lazy spelling, incorrect vocabulary and incorrect grammar of Americans for "dialect". :o) Chris talk back 19:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Debate is good. If only we could have a proper debate on schools that doesn't descend into a mud-slinging match between those on the one hand who believe that schools must all be kept, and those on the other who insist that most of them must go. Kind of leaves those of us who seek to judge articles on their individual merits stuck in the middle.
Perhaps we need a temporary official policy to "stockpile" school AfDs, so that they are not contested until some kind of policy can be formed. Only problem there is that the French have a saying for this: Nothing lasts as long as the temporary. Oh, well ... Chris talk back 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think a temporary stockpile will not work. The point is that, given you only need 30% to force a nc, and that there are far more schools being created than AfD ever sees, the inclusionists will win everytime. They really don't need to compromise - game over. And those in the middle can do nothing. I think, as unpallatable as it is for many, the only 'end' of this is to accept that 'win'. Short of changing threshhold for deletions, which isn't going to happen, this is all over bar the shouting. Commonsense is just going to have to accept that. --Doc (?) 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, what is important now is to maintain/increase the standards of each school article and ensure the school articles are in context. I wonder who will step to the plate? David D. (Talk) 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe no-one will, but as far as the 'debate' is concerned it doesn't matter. David, if that's a genuine problem to be tackled then it can be looked at (although it may be unanswerable)- but if it is just another argument looking for the answer 'no-one will, so we better delete' then forget it. Because as much as you might be right - it doesn't make any difference. The schools will be kept, period. All of them - and there will be 10,000's more - get used to it. Live with it - or abandon the wiki as a lost cause, up to you, because there it is. When I say 'game over' I mean it. There is no rematch under a different heading - there is no 'other tack' to take. You can, of course, keep shouting, or you can lie down - either way - same result. Doc (?) 20:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
but if it is just another argument looking for the answer 'no-one will, so we better delete' I am not a deletionist but I get frustrated by low quality. Initially I voted to delete some of the school articles, since they were often just created by students with an axe to grind. Then i saw how the school watch crowd were making an honest effort to create decent stubs. Assuming 'game over', I would like to see an effort to put these new stubs in their correct context, otherwise what is the role for these stubs? I have often heard they will grow organically but i find this a strange attitude from those who fight so hard to keep them in the first place. What are they fighting for, what do they see as the future role of these stubs? What pages will link to these schools? A page is only as good as its context within the wikipedia network. These are just a few random thoughts, but I agree 'game over' and time to move on. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in retrospect, my fears may be less founded than i had initially thought. While a new school stub, such as Oak_Green_School, has no pages linking to it, I do notice that it has extensive categories. I admit that I do not tend to use categories in wikipedia but as wikipedia matures I assume categories will be the way to find relevant info. I am a dinosaur still trying to adapt to that method of cataloging. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In regard to "growing organically", a quick study I did has discouraging implications. I looked at all the school articles for the states of California and Texas, looking specifically for articles a year old or older. Of the twelve I found, only two had undergone extensive development, five had undergone some development, and five were essentially unchanged. This is nearly half the articles. With a huge increase in stub creation for the sake of stub creation, I expect the problem will get worse instead of better. I believe it is important to find some means of screening school articles so that at very least, they give more than the school's name and location. I am unprepared to allow the inclusionists to claim total victory by failing to call the worst offenders. Denni☯ 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said to David (above), you may well be correct. And we may now need to have a 'given that the schools are here to stay, what can be done to improve/monitor them' debate. But if this is another argument for deletion (even of some) save your breath - unfortunately no-one is listening. You say that you are unprepared to allow the inclusionists to claim total victory - it doesn't matter: they have won a total victory. All high schools are kept (increasingly outright) all lesser school are default keeps - and that will not change. Schools stay, period. The continued 'debate' is spectacular in it's fury but boringly inevitable in its outcome. Game over. Doc (?) 09:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
(Some random musings, not confined no schools.) When patrolling the New Pages, plausibly sounding hoaxes do crop up. (So-and-so wrote that-and-that book, easy to confirm in the catalogue of the relevant deposit library.) This happens increasingly, it's common to find one created two hours back. To have those purged fast from the project and mark them while they are still there I created {{Hoax}}, which will likely end up deleted. One can extrapolate that maybe a dozen hoaxe entries are created each day. A fair amount will stay. But who cares if no one searches for the thing? It will sit quietly, quite like the "thoroughly plonked troll entering a newsgroup". Does it make a sound?
Would a trust metric help? It's a technical solution to a social problem, so I doubt it. Common sense and an understanding of social forces (i.e. where are the swamps that one ought not to go) is more sensible. Pilatus 04:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dowling Catholic High School

It is very discouraging to find an article one wants to have input on and find it has already been closed. It is especially so if the article is only a day old. I appreciate the time you give to closing debates, but I hope you will give them a reasonable time to remain open unlesss there is some pressing reason to close them early. Denni☯ 02:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to desist pre-emptively closing these things - as I recognise what futility is: my closings are reverted. But I do think all schools debates should be speedily closed - because they are nasty and futile. You say that you want to input - input into what? There is no debate, there is an immature slug-fest with an inevitable result. Some warriors may enjoy participating in this pointless blood sport - but that will not stop some of us wanting it terminated. --Doc (?) 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for speaking up on the behalf of a user you did not even know. I appreciate your efforts for justice. Should you have any lingering concerns, I encourage you to come to my talk page and join the dialog there on what has occured. Discussion is the best way to calm stormy waters. TheChief (PowWow) 17:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I did speak up on your behalf, my concern was with due process. Official sanctions need to work from a 'presumption of innocence', however, as an individual editor, I can have my own private presumptions, and I think I'll leave it at that.Doc (?) 18:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Arguing for due process is a just cause, and was what I was denied, thus your efforts were appreciated. TheChief (PowWow) 19:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey Doc. 129.7.35.213 (talk • contribs) is a known vandal of user pages and articles and uses about three different IPs to edit. I think the other two have been blocked but as for this one - Please block. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see any current vandalism from this IP at the moment. POV pushing perhaps, but that's not blockable unless it breaks the 3RR. I'll keep an eye on it, if you see any clear vandalism, let me know or list on WP:AIV. --Doc (?) 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It has been dealt with, user blacklisted. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice apology

Hi! I was just keeping an eye on 24.146.23.147 and saw your blocking and subsequent apology. Bravo both for trying to keep things clean and for being forthright about your mistakes! --William Pietri 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the only way to do RCP is to be careful but to know you risk mistakes. Apologies avoid any further nastiness (I hope). I'm getting quite used to mea culpa. Doc (?) 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, the way things work, huh? Some people can't help themselves. I see you've earnt yourself an RfM for your troubles. That must score double! I wonder if Redwolf24 can provide information on what the record shortest time between applying a block and the filing of an RfM is — 12 minutes must make you a contender! And "allegdly" is still in the article. -Splashtalk 11:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You have no life.

Seriously, you just sit in front of your computer watching the list of most recently edited pages. That's just sad.

Yup, I'm sad - maybe I should become a page blanking vandal like you - because that's less sad?? --Doc (?) 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Thanks for catching that last rollback. What a mess!!!  :-) >: Roby Wayne Talk 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Block Please

User:The Wheels on the willy goes round and round Sleeper Account didn't see it blocked yet. Found it looking at new users log --152.163.100.70 00:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I dealt with it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh well, two indefinate blocks are better than one :) --Doc (?) 00:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

OK sorry about that. Just got annoyed by senseless reverts --CltFn 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting my talk page, though you'll notice I generally keep personal attacks where they are: I have unreverted it and noted that it was an unsigned comment. I'm not dissatisfied or anything, it's just a quirk of mine... -- Francs2000 01:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, we're all allowed our oddities - but don't take offense if I still revert anymore in future. It's my reflext reaction! :) --Doc (?) 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mine too. It's actually somewhat satisfying, reverting vandals. I need to get out more... -- Francs2000 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [1] --Silverback 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

So? Doc ask? 09:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Great Serpent of Sumeria

As an academic in the field of religion, could you please take a look at this article. It was kept (no consensus), against my nomination on AfD, likely at least partly due to a rewrite made after the nomination. The problem is that the references offered simply do not support the content of the article. The issue is not whether various reptilish mythological creatures existed in Near Eastern or other mythologies, but whether a particular "Great Serpent of Sumeria" is known from any sources and has the characteristics claimed by the article. If it is all an invention of Lovecraft (which is also not supported with any reference which it would make it easily verifiable), the rest of the article still remains a hoax and/or original research. I don't care much if some schools or other things are kept because of a lack of consensus over the notability, but this kind of unverified and unverifiable garbage should really not be tolerated. I feel uninclined to renominate this on AfD immediately, as I know that is usually frowned upon, and want a second opinion on the issue. Tupsharru 08:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is way off my field. But I'd agree it is currently unverified; and unless that changes, it ought to be deleted. I've commented on the talk page. Let me know if you nominate it for deletion again. --Doc ask? 10:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll wait a while and see what happens. Tupsharru 11:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Question on AfD for recreated articles

Doc, Secret Syde article on a non-notable band was recreated after a previous delete. I can't see the text of the article to see if it is a speed G4 candidate. I did try to follow the proper process for afd nomination. When I went to afd2 step, its previous delete discussion page came up. I may not have followed the proper procedure, but I put the afd2 comments at the top of the page and then put the afd3 comments as usual. Please let me know if this was correct; or if not, what is the proper process. Thanks. ERcheck 00:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've speedied this as a G4 - and removed your afd listing. Few things to know:

  1. If somthing has been previously deleted after afd, tag it for a speedy first. It may not be a speedy (it could be a substantialy new article), but tagging it will get an admin to look at the history and check this. It will save your and afd's time if it is a speedy. You may be able to guess by looking at the old afd - if the deletion was on grounds of content (didcdef etc) it may perhaps not be a speedy - but if the deletion concluded that the subject itself didn't merit an article (band vanity) then it is unlikely anything will have changed. The creator should have gone to WP:DR before creating the article.
  2. If you want to nominate an article that's already been nominated (whether it was deleted or kept first time round). Either move the old page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/foo/old and remove the redirect on the original and you have your new nomination page. Or create the new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/foo (second nomination) and change the afd header and listing to link to it, rather than the old nom.
I hope that's helpful. --Doc ask? 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Doc - Yes. Very helpful. I appreciate you for taking the time to help me learn the ropes. ERcheck 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk • contribs)

Ahem. Pointless indeed.

The new me.
Enlarge
The new me.

Doc,
An IRC wrestling match is indeed a waste not only of my own time (which is silly) but of other people's time (which is selfish). In future I shall try to remember that once two people are rolling in the mud, they both get dirty. Or some other metaphor that explains that I'll save my breath for discussions that have some chance for a positive outcome.
brenneman(t)(c) 22:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AND YOU THINK A BUDDAH IS GOING TO PLACATE A CHRISTIAN POV WARRIOR LIKE ME! ;) No, like peace man, I don't think you were anything like the biggest hippopotamus in that debate! But we all, myself included, enjoy engaging in moderate bit of trolling, just on occassion. Doc ask? 22:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the image at the top of this page. :-P --GraemeL (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Post-modern ironic trolling is allowed though. :) --Doc ask? 23:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism... on my user page.

Prodego talk 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A picture of a Dick on your talk page

A picture of Dick on your talk page
Enlarge
A picture of Dick on your talk page

Sorry about accidentally reverting the vandalism back onto your userpage. To make up for it, here's a picture of a Dick on your talk page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia-watch

Hi,

I'm leaving this message on the page of all the users mentioned by Brandt on this new page of his wikipeida-watch site. As you can see from the link, he's put together a list of the Wikipedia users that he sees as his enemies, and is trying to collect as much personal information as he can about each of them. Just thought I should let you know. Canderson7 12:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - although I'm not really concerned at this stage.--Doc ask? 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

revert

It's usually a sign you're doing something right! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to revert this, but I decided I liked it. brenneman(t)(c) 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox RFA

Doc glasgow/11Nov05

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_11Nov05_c49a.html"