User:Doc glasgow/Sep 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Kwame Nkurumah and Palffy

Hello. Do you remember me? I had some issues with User:Palffy, you told us to stay away.

I did, he is not doing. So, are you going to do anything?--Kwame Nkrumah 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi there

I thought you might be interested in contributing here, [1]. Cheers, --Palffy 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 40 hours, as he was already aware of 3RR and had violations on 2 articles (one with 6 reverts, one with 5) alphaChimp laudare 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


What is wrong with you?

Why did you remove Template:User conservative? I see no reason for it. I demand an explanation on my talk page. Nick Warren 02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't negotiate with terrorists, and I don't respond to demands. But since you asked nicely, POV declaring templates are not allowed in the official template space, see WP:GUS. This deletion was months ago, the subject is dead, and I have no more to say. --Doc 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hhhmmm...I see. Well, anyway. I apologize for that. I didn't mean to make anyone mad. I found out what all that was about and I understand it now. Sorry. Nick Warren 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for not blocking me

Those final comments I wrote while drunk, and barely remember them. I do remember being extremely angry. I tried talking to Michael Snow, and he wouldn't deign to respond. I really want to do things the right way, but I tried the talking, and it didn't work. It didn't work at all. I'll play nice in the future and edit sober. Billy Blythe 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking is always best. When that fails, try other means - there are RfCs and finally arbcom. Third party input is quite good at helping get a proper perspective. I'm not going to defend or attack Michael Snow, but you simply put yourslef waaaay in the wrong with those comments. Some admins I was speaking with wanted you banned, but I figured it looked like a one off. Don't drink and type - bad move (I've done it - but I can obviously handle it better). Play nice. But, thanks for admiting you were in the wrong, rather than trying to justify yourself, that's always a good start. If you can't drop the matter with Michael Snow (and it might be best if you did), please use a regular method to pursue the case. Thanks. --Doc 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for the award!!! I'm moving it to my awards section. SynergeticMaggot 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


SGGS on Meat and Parables

I noticed your post on both the above articles' user pages SGGS on Meat and Parable of the Wedding Feast and ask for your support on the basic that they are both quotes from holy text to support a view of the holy text which is important for us all to know. Only by knowing what the holy text says can we learn and communicate the message of the text. POV or NPOV does not come into it!! I ask for your support to keep both articles. Many thanks. --Hari Singh 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to 'communicate the message of the text', but to record verifiable neutral information about the text. NPOV does come into it. I'm confident that a neutral article can be written on an indvidual part of a religious text, I'm not confident that it can be written on a thematic: 'what this religious text reaches about ...' basis. --Doc 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Privacy issue

Re. the earlier conversation, I've e-mailed a dev and asked for all the logs to be errased. --Doc 00:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Domo Arigato. Sore. --Cat out 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey

Would you be interested in participating with regards to this issue since you've already given input into this earlier? [2] Thanks, --Palffy 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Good to see ya back

Hiya Doc, good to see ya back. I meant what I wrote after you left - you are an excellent editor and admin, even though it really hurts to lock horns with ya. CharonX/talk 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Google Cube

I was tidying this up as you deleted it, so I restored it, but in the end I ended up merging and redirecting it to Google PC. Have a look and see what you think, it's late my end so I'm off to bed, but I thought I'd drop you a courtesy note on what I'd done and why. Steve block Talk 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No that's fine. It was a prod deletion - so you are quite entitled to restore it anyway. Besides which, I've always said I'm happy for my speedies to be reveresed if someone thinks the content can be used. If there's a dispute, then there is afd. Thanks for letting me know (very courteous)- but I'm content to leave it with you. --Doc 07:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. You might like to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google OS. But, as I say, I have no opinion. --Doc 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I figure it's best to keep people aware of these sorts of things. I did have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google OS and the article history there, but I think the fact that the Google Cube was mentioned in newspapers, I can source three British press reports, and with CNN still reporting the rumour, it provides more reliable sourcing than anything the Google OS article had before deletion. But like you, I'm perfectly happy to see the article at afd if there is a dispute. Steve block Talk 08:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sound's good - I'm not disputing it either way. --Doc 09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm...

... not systematic, systemic bias. But I think there is definite bias against Christianity in Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Vandal pages

Apologies for that, Doc glasgow. I'll try not to feed the troll. --TheM62Manchester 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Re: CSD on User:Tmalmjursson/archive_4 & User:Tmalmjursson/RTLOG.

Thanks for taking those pages out for me, Doc. I figured that I needed to start clearing up some of the redundant garbage & stuff I had left on WP. I am not leaving, heaven forbid, just figured it was time to do a bit of personal housekeeping. Regards, and thanks again. Thor Malmjursson 11:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


User:TheM62Manchester's sock tagging

I noticed that you asked this user to stop tagging sock accounts, especially those with no edits. However, the user appears to still be doing it, despite your warning. Among them are User:C'mon Be A Sport And Unblock AOL. Im Sorry I Shouted.., User:Well,IWentToEditAndGuessWhat...AOL IS BLOCKED AGAIN!!, and User:Japanese Wikipedia Server Stopping Srow. There seem to be about 8 or so of these user pages that the user has tagged since your warning and their promise to stop. Do you have any thoughts on this pattern of editing? Metros232 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages now deleted - yes, this needs to stop. --Doc 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought this was a good way to increase my edit count. Oh, well, I'll have to find another way. We need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for a policy on this. I don't want to get into an argument with anyone. --TheM62Manchester 13:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Increase your edit count? Why do you want to do that? We're here to build an encyclopedia, not count edits. Go write some articles if you must increase you edit count - it will secure less edits, but it is of far more benefit. If it is adminship you're after - the criterion is 'how has this editor helped wikipedia?' not 'how many edits does he have, no matter how useless'.
And as to needing consensus for a policy - no, we don't. We just need common sense - creating user pages, tagging, and categorising nil-edit accounts isn't useful. Potentially it encourages vandals - so we simply stop it. But, no harm done, I'm mass deleting the userpages. --Doc 13:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, Doc glasgow; I've learnt from my mistake. Anyhow, I'm trying to get better at vandal-fighting. --TheM62Manchester 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Lack of edit summary

Why did you revert this external link to an important news story today. You did not provide an edit summary:[3] Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry. The lack of edit summary was a mistake on my part - too many clever functions in my monobook, and this one malfunctioned. I didn't mean to be rude - good faith edits like yours always deserve an explanation.
My problem with your link is that the article is a general one on Roman Catholicism, whilst your link is to a specific incident (and not even one that is mentioned in the article). I'd expect links on that page to be to sites offering general infomation or comment on R.Catholicism in Scotland. The incident in itself is certainly notable, but probably deserves mention under some specifically football or sectarian ism related article. And for the link to be relevant, it needs to be relevant enough to mention in the text. I hope that's explanation enough. Again, sorry, --Doc 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course! Thanks. I really ought to get around to reading WP:EL one day.
This police caution and involvement of the Crown Office certainly looks like a notable event, even in the context of a wider article about the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland (eg. their press office seems to place a very high importance on the issue), so perhaps I will see if I can incorporate something into the actual text, and use the newspaper link as a Ref. --Mais oui! 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden City Christian Church

Regarding the above AfD, please consider that the points which you consider as definitive evidence of notability for this church only showed up in the fourth paragraph of the four-paragraph article (as it was at the time of the AfD nomination). [4] Thus, the format of the article tended to conceal rather than assert the claims to notability. Please assume good faith rather than accusing me of not having read the article; consider that the first four editors to respond to the AfD also recommended a "delete", so the notability of the church could not have been obvious to them either. --Metropolitan90 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. It isn't a question of 'definitive evidence of notability' - when you nominated this article you said 'This article makes no claim to notability for this church' (emphasis added) - clearly there was a claim to notability in the article (megachurch - 50 staff - runs a college). You said 'most individual religious congregations are not sufficiently notable' - perhaps, but that implies the church is just like the average parish church - but actually the church in question is hardly like 'most' congregations. As to 'concealed' (WTF?) - hardly - it was a very short article, and the diffrences between this and the average church were pretty obvious. When I suggested you may not have read the article, I was assuming good faith - as all the other explanations that occurred to me were assuming otherwise. Now, had you nominated it because the claims wern't verifiable, that would have been different, but that's not what you said.--Doc 08:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article didn't say the church was a megachurch. It said "See also ... Megachurch." --Metropolitan90 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come off it.--Doc 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Vote concerning early Scottish monarchs

There's a vote going on regarding the correct names of the articles on early Scottish monarchs at Talk: Cináed I of Scotland. Your input would be very welcome. --Nydas 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Nathanrdotcom

Woaaah. What the heck happened to Nathanrdotcom. He was here. Now hes not.. What did he do? Koolgiy 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He left. I'd leave it at that. --Doc 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


blocking of User:TheM62Manchester

Hi Doc, sorry for butting in on this without being asked (just an innocent passer-by here), but I'm a bit confused by this block. You said in your unblock-decline message that there was Checkuser evidence against him. Where is that? If you mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Willy_on_Wheels, TheM62Manchester (talk • contribs) was the requester, and the sockpuppeting was done by his impostors, wasn't it? Did I miss something? I had the impression TheM62Manchester was just a very eager good-faith contributor, maybe a bit unexperienced and over-eager, but where's the evidence of the vandalism? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't block him. But when Cyde did, I asked checkuserer User:Kelly Martin to confirm whether there was confirmation of the accusation that he was a sock of a well-known vandal. Kelly confirmed it, so I declined the request. --Doc 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I only now found the discussion on Cyde's talk page. Weird case though, isn't it. Sorry for bothering you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
He isn't a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels, but he does know someone who is. It's probably because they tag team using a Local area network (AFAIK). --Whitmarewood 10:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
TheM62Manchester is not a sockpuppet of anyone, and hasn't vandalised. He and his friend use the computer network alternate days... hence the WoW stuff... --Whitmarewood 10:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So his pall creates troll accounts, and he tags them later. Coincidence? Anyway, nothing to do with me. --Doc 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


CVU

Ive been a tad inactive for a bit and thought I'd ask, what happened to the CVU? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Defcom

Doc, is it okay if Defcom is in my userspace? Yanksox 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. Please update the Template:wdefcon, and mark the redirects for deletion. Thanks. --Doc 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, there is a discussion right now on the talk page, your comments would be appreciated. Yanksox 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Scots trout slapping provocation?

the convo between VP/(K?) and myself is mostly on my talk so I've half a mind to unilaterally :) move your comment back. I was happy to have it on his page but I've gotten tired of refactoring things so tried the "OK, you replied on my page that's where it stays" tack. Thanks for the note though! ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NP, and if my comment is counterproductive feel free to blank it. --Doc 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Grin. I made up the other half of my mind and in fact DID unilaterally move it. Bring on the trout. If you dare. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Matters not now, I've banished our mutual friend to the big black troll hole. --Doc 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


ZIN

ZIN posted the indefinitely-blocked template on IAMTHESTRANGER's userpage, but this user appears to never have been warned as they have no userpage. Is this user indeed indefinitely blocked? Unilateral. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yuu can check such things yourself at the block log. [5]. --Doc 07:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Blocked

Hello I am an aol user trying to update some information on Chinese and Russian auto firms, and because i have a shared IP with some nutter i cant do what i need to do, so please unblock me so i can continue what i am trying to do.

"{{unblock}}"Xljesus 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC) its something to do with a Dickwittingtonwithwings????Xljesus 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be unblocked now. Sorry. --Doc 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Kilt wearers

I'm curious why you closed the category:Kilt wearers discussion and deleted the category so quickly. What makes it worse than any of the other Wikipedian categories?--Mike Selinker 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I closed it (per WP:SNOW) because the result was obvious and undebatable. Debates are for debatable matters. Perhaps the others are as bad - but I saw this one. --Doc 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the result was either obvious or undebatable. There are no clear rules on what is allowable for a Wikipedian category. Maybe if we had some then your action would have made more sense to me. Perhaps that should happen next.--Mike Selinker 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't do rules, we do what helps build an encyclopedia.--Doc 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


The Board

Please do not create subpages and clog our organazation. If you continue to troll, you will be blocked. Julz 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

'your organisation'? hey, it's a wiki. Anyway, I assumed your 'broad election' was a parody, and I was simply adding to the humour. ... Hell, don't tell me you are serious....?--Doc 08:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Category:Kilt Wearers

I saw this category was deleted. I am not aware of the basis behind it. I hope you would tell me when you read my message.Unitedroad 15:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Read two sections above. --Doc 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants

Hello, can you please explain what you meant by "joke" on the Board voting booth and also if you could please answer the questions me and others have on the MfD page? Thanks. --AndreniW 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought/think that a wikiproject having a president is a joke. It's silly. That's all. There's an MfD? Oh well, whatever people want to do with time, I suppose.--Doc 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the delete

Sorry about that spot. Just don't do that. Disruptive. Thanks anyway. Julz

No not deliberately disruptive. I actually didn't think for a minute your crazy election was serious - I assumed it was a joke, a parody of a real election, so I joined in. Now it appears you are serious. Still, I'd urge you to delete all your election pages befoe you look any more ridiculous than you do now. --Doc 20:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


How to talk to Poles

That was a brilliant link you added to that article on meta. I salute you. john k 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


West Indies abbr

Its for use in the Template:Infobox Cricketer, which currently has seperate parameters for the country, abbreivation and adjective. By creating the templates named Template:country abbr and Template:country adj we will be able to eliminate later two parameters from the template. josh (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


User:Scottandrewhutchins

Hey Doc, I need another admin to look into this situation. This user is being extremely disruptive in continually adding OR to Gremlins and accusing me of vandalism for removing it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted, not vandalism, but disruption. I would hope when you say he may have a point, that doesn't mean you agree my edits were vandalism. I've been trying to make sure the article is referenced- quality control. Towards the end he tried using a different source, and I'd be fine with those. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't like his edits, you view them as unhelpful (I probably agree), so revert them and discuss. But unless they are simple vandalim (which we agree they are not) then you musn't use admin roll-back,and you must consider yourself also bound by the 3RR. He is, of course, wrong to call your edits vandalism - but then in using roll-back you are treating his as vandalism, which also puts you in the wrong. It takes two to edit-war. Probably best never to use admin functions in an article in which you have a content interest. --Doc 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Liar.

You have dishonestly and uncivilly claimed that my edits to Gremlins are nonsense. I take offense at your attacks, and I also take offense that the error-fille All Movie guide is considered by you to be a more reliable source than IMDb, which CanadianCaesar seems unable to understand is a submission-approval based information site that happens to have a message board, not a message board, per se.--Scottandrewhutchins 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You, matey, are sailing periously close to the wind. If you've got a case, discuss it on the tak page and try to convince others. Stop reverting, and stop accusing others of vandalism, or you will be blocked. --Doc 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please have the decency to unblock me

I am trying to update the Yo Sushi page, and i see that i am still being blocked because i share the same address with others on the aol network. By any chance could you please unblock me so i can update the pages that need to be updated, such as this for Yo! Sushi (below). If you wont unblock me, could you at least paste and update the information below on the Yo! Sushi pageXljesus 11:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I need your IP to unblock you.--Doc 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


"What a silly waste of time"

...was your comment in that MfD (and this message too, but we have a holiday in the US, so I'm somewhat exempt! :) Sometimes, not everyone is in the mood to sweep something under the rug, Doc. For one thing, some folks wanted to userfy this -- I have no idea what you think about that, much less the community. The amazing solution for this is (shocked look) discuss it first! There were nine established Wikipedians who wanted to talk about this, and seven who did not. What's the harm in discussion, Doc? Why have you such a strong dislike for talking before doing? Best wishes, Xoloz 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk long and hard about what belongs in the encyclopedia - that's what debates are for. I'm sick of talking about stuff that is nothing to do with the encyclopedia, that's a waste of time. Given the discussion on CfD, there is a consensus that WP:DENY is basically a good idea. Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames serves no useful purpose (no one has ever argued it has) - and it is possibly harmful - so deleting it has no downside and a possible upside. I don't see a majority, never mind a consensus, on DRV giving substantive reasons for undeletion. Since it isn't a vote, unreasoned or process-related voices should be discounted anyway. --Doc 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it's clearly a good idea to get a consensus on userfication now? Doesn't this debate help do that? Doesn't ironing that question out aid the encyclopedia, or would you rather I just userfy such things, as would be my common sense instinct? More generally, doesn't every debate "won" by WP:DENY help push it toward "policy-hood"? When did CfD alone gain the authority to make policy for the whole encyclopedia? Looks to me like we due process folks should be thanked for our thoroughness and thoughtfulness. Leave the encyclopedia to "unilateralists" (slap away), and you'd only have an encyclopedia with a side of anarchy.
There is a majority at the DRV for relisting, and that counts as consensus at DRV, because we only decide whether further discussion is warranted (see cloture). If you can't see that, either 1) you're having counting problems today; or 2) you're willing to discount some established Wikipedians, and they'd be justified in "slapping you with a Scots trout" for so doing. Good thing for everybody that you didn't close it, Doc. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
1) Policy is as we do - no more. Thus CfD forms policy as much as any other discussion. 2) Userfication makes no sense, since WP:DENY is the reason most people want this deleted - and userfication does not deny recognition, so then there's hardly likely to be a coherent argument for userfying. 3) It is fine to have a discussion - the problem is that process renominations will doom as to having the same discussion over and over again until the last man tires of it. If all the vandal-cruft needs to be put through 'process', then we'll have to keep discussing that, rather than potentially encyclopedic material - which we'll both surely agree is not good. DRV should focus on making sure good material is not accidently or carelessly removed from the encyclopedia - if it does that, then it is really worth its salt.
As for consensus, I don't know what disctionary ever defined a 'majority' as a 'consensus'. That's clearly wrong. And I'd be the last to discount established wikipedians who enter into the discussion. I'm happy to listen to any good argument why something serves the encyclopedia and should be kept - whether from established users or total n00bs. It is always possible that someone will be able to convincingly indicate why soemthing isn't useless. But no-one made any such attempt on the DRV. 'Voting' =! discussing. If people can't be bothered to give reasons that are honest attempts to persuade, then they are not contributing to the discussion. At that point, it isn't that I have 'counting problems', it is that I'm not counting at all. I rather wish I had closed that debate - maybe I'll start closing some from now on. --Doc 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it is Wikipedia:Undeletion policy that defines majority as consensus at DRV; not merely in writing, but in practice for ages now. Policy is as we do, and you'll be in for loads of fun if you try to change long established undeletion mechanics on a lark. We do that for a very good reason: as long as a majority (not one griper, but a majority) wishes to discuss something, we do, no matter how many other folks fret about how useless discussion is.
You shouldn't resort to an ad infinitum argument so early, Doc. The discussion of "denying recognition" is almost over, but you don't help things by raising the spectre of "one griper" leading to gridlock. That matter will be settled the minute most of us care to stop discussing it, not before. Rather than complain that other people don't jump to conclusions as quickly as you do by calling us "silly", why not join in the discussion productively, eh?
If you think the argument for userfication is no different than for Wikipedia pages, you're not thinking very hard or very well. User subpages are places rarely seen by the wiki-masses, where many amusements are permitted for individual users temperments; Wiki-space pages carry the imprimatur of the encyclopedia, at least subliminally. Traditionally, lattitude is given to users on their own pages, and these seldom-seen pages don't seem capable of "glorifying" anything. As I say, my instinct is that WP:DENY doesn't apply, and it will take a better argument than "Obviously it applies -- any argument to the contrary is foolish, because Doc says so" to convince me. Curiously enough, I do respect the argument that consensus says so, which is exactly what is developing at this debate. In essence, I did you and your policy a great favor by helping to put it on firmer footing, and you have chosen to deride my use of my time for so doing. Thanks!
I've never bothered to comment anywhere about all of the time I've wasted cleaning up after your T1 userbox speedy deletions; I must have spent at least a wiki-week's worth of time userfying those things, after consensus decided outright deletion wasn't the way to go. I try to avoid broaching such contentious topics, myself, but I have no qualms about reciprocating when I'm accused of wasting other people's time. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Fascinatingly, on your own talk page above, you accede to the use of WikiDefCon in userspace, when you had championed its deletion from wikispace. Perhaps this example of your own conduct will help clarify for you why deleting a userfied "vandal humor" page is a matter worth discussing bit. Xoloz 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
THat was a mistake, logivally, I should eb arguing for its total deletion (see the reasoning below). But right now, that's not a fight I can win. Perhaps once WP:DENY catches on we should look at that.
(ed conflict)OK, I'm not about to try to change DRV, but if it means majority perhaps it should say that. (Not that I'm blaming you for that.) Consensus means something else. I like plain speak. Actually, I've been joining the discussion on WP:DENY at various places, and making the case why some of the vandalism-paraphanalia is counterproductive. As I say, discussion is good, and arguments need to be made - and invite refutaion. As for userfying, that was a good solution with userboxes, but it doesn't make the grade with the WP:DENY principle. We do have vandals that take an interest in how wikipedia responds to them. Checkuser revealed that one user who was tagging and categorising blocked vandal accounts was also responsible for creating the same and vandalising. I'm suspicious of several others - whom I watching. Such people are likely to be encouraged by 'glorification' pages whatever namespace they are in. A list of blocked bizzare usernames - is an invitation for someone to be more adventurous or funny in creating other such accounts. It is really tiresome for those of us who take the time to patrol account creations and block these (often abusive) usernames. Bottom line, userfied vandal lisings serve no conceivable purpose, and are at least possibly an incitement to vandalism. No gain to wikipedia in userfying and possibly a drawback - so don't do it.
As to the rest, I'm not about to defend or apologise for my part in the userbox fiasco. I'm out of that game. However, I can aknowledge that it must have been highly annoying for you and many 'neutrals'. Perhaps at this point we should let this matter rest. If I've sounded dismissive of you I'm sorry. I have a frustration with process, when it seems to be being used to protect blatently unencyclopedic material. Others have a different philosophy. Fair enough, we agree to differ. --Doc 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize also for allowing myself to become flustered; it's probably true that I have too much time on my hands on holidays. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too (although less time just now).--Doc 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From Tony's talk:

Xoloz, I've no desire to breach our peace. Perhaps you are right here. Perhaps, as an involved party, Tony should have left it to another to close. If speedy closing was appropriate, somone else would have done it. However, equally, as the opener of the discussion, perhaps you should not have been the one to reopen it. Perhaps, if it needed re-opening, someone else should have done that? :) Just a thought, --Doc 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhhhhhhaps... but, in my defense, one strong argument in favor of my capacity to reopen is that I still have no position (formal or otherwise) on this little page. In opening, I did abstain, you know. (As an aside, Doc, if you admit to a "frustration with process" generally, trying to "out-process" a wonk lawyer like me is probably not good for your health!) Also, reopening needs to happen quickly; or else, after a possible DRV, we risking having to "relist" it, which just about nobody really wants, do we now? Xoloz 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As a very rusty law graduate - and an argumentative old sod, I assure you I'm well capable of out doing the wonks in wonkery. ;) --Doc 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House

Looks to be a clear concensus for delete, ignoring single-purpose accounts. Some of those single-purpose accounts have thousands of edits, but, stilll.... I don't want to bring it to WP:Deletion review without asking your interpretation, first, as the closing admin. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I closed that after a lot of thought. It was finely balanced - and I predicted that one side would be unhappy with the closure. However, I'll take another look at it - and spell out my reasoning if I decide to stand by my decision. However, please give me a lttle time. Can you define 'single purpose account'? I generally discount socks and very new users - but not accounts with 'thousands of edits' --Doc 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm always happy to be asked to review any deletion decision I take, and I'm not too proud to change my views. However I've looked this over, and I'm very confident in standing by my decision.
  1. As far as arithmetic is concerned, I disgarded 32 delete votes and 1 keep vote as being either brand new accounts, multiple votes, or sock/meat puppets. That included all the accounts marked as 'single purpose' (although I'm still not sure what that means). But even after that, I made 15 delete votes - to 11 keep. Granted a few 'votes' lacked reason - but any way you look at it that's not a consensus. established users were going both ways.
  2. As to the argument, the subject is of questionable notability - but is also verifiable and capable of neutral description. There certainly is no overwhelming case for deletion, and no real agreement. Again no consensus is a default keep
You can take this to DRV if you want, but I will strongly resist an overturn. I've no axe to grind about the article (I don't care) but the result of the debate is not even borderline - it is clearly without consensus. I'd suggest, that if you are determined to see a deletion, that you wait a while and then try a second nomination, and hope you are able to persuade more people of the merits of deletion. Thanks. --Doc 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OK -- I follow your reasoning. As for single-purpose accounts, I was including User:Striver. He has thousands of edits, but all to 911 articles, as far as I could tell — but now I see he's an islamaphile, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Unilateral misery guts

[6]. Well, I unilaterally thought it was funilaterlny. -Splash - tk 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You were warned --Doc 23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You were warned --Doc 23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 10:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Ex-CVU

I kindly ask you to restore that at once. I dont take speedy deletions of stuff in my userspace lightly. --Cat out 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CC, you should know better. Personal attacks are not allowed. Take your dispute with Essjay off wiki somewhere. --Doc 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Essjay was not mention in the text, nor was he attacked in any way. I am alowed to complain. You should know better than that as well. --Cat out 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come off it.--Doc 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This coming at the same time period as the deletion request of the CVU, or the copyright speedy deletion of logos is a strange coincidence. I already told you, I do not take this lightly. I already bosted this on ANB/I --Cat out 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. - EurekaLott 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I've made a minor comment under yours. I think "process" deflects from the issue here: the valid question (one everybody agrees is valid, because it is a part of WP:DENY) is whether anybody is using this list actively for a good reason. WP:DENY only applies to vandal-pages nobody needs (admittedly the vast majority of our vandal-pages.) Still, how do we work out a way to give notice to folks who might be using these things before we delete them? Something like PROD maybe?, where the deletions are basically automatic, but some time is given for admins who might need the list to notice? Xoloz 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Perhaps we need something new - a sort of 'speedy pendngn notice'. Prod is no use, we've got a few vandal-criminologists who dislike WP:DENY in all every aspect, they'd just remove such tags. --Doc 17:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "pending speedy" notice, and have so commented at DRV with reference to this exchange. Xoloz 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


The impersonator account

"Clever" user of "I" instead of "l" in impersonating you. I've deleted the "Doc GIasgow" user page and talk page, which redirected to your userpage and talk page. (Should I have reverted the talk page edit and left a {{usernameblock}} message? I opted not to — didn't want to give recognition. However, if you think it approprate, I'll redo it.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I blocked the account, but missed the pages. Deleting looks good to me per WP:DENY.--Doc 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Caroline Mulroney AfD

I have no dispute with the result on the AfD for Caroline Mulroney. My question is just one of sheer curiosity - on what basis did you decide to say "keep" when, if anything, it appears there was "no consensus"? I know the ultimate result in either case is keep, but it would be nice to know the reasoning for a closing an AfD as "keep" in such a circumstance. Agent 86 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


DRV notice

I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of spamming. If I was trolling for votes or only notifying certain people, then you would have been correct to chastise me. From my experience, DRV has a rather low profile, and most contributors at WP:CFD are unaware of the discussions. I know that I'm grateful for notifications when an article or category I have voted on is listed there. - EurekaLott 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. No harm done. I also owe you an apology, as I failed to notice that the categories had been depopulated and tagged for speedy deletion by the time you saw them. We probably could have avoided some headaches if I'd simply talked to you about it before taking the issue to DRV. - EurekaLott 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Doc

Since Will has left, and I dunno who else was involved, I was wondering if you could inform me of what happened with Nathanrdotcom? All I know is Nathan sent a "particularly spiteful" email. If it's something that should not be discussed out here in the wild wild wiki, that's fine. I was just wondering if there was anything public you could share. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Thursday, September 7, 2006, 02:09 (UTC)

As it involves accusations which, whether true or false, are damaging to someone, and all my knowledge is second hand, I really don't want to get drawn into a discussion either on or off wiki. That's all, --Doc 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks anyway. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Saturday, September 9, 2006, 00:35 (UTC)


These categories are "Revered "??

NB. Subsequently revered and undeleted by me. Relist this if you want to. --Doc 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ... Er, I think you meant "reverted" but that typo made me die laughing just now. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps a little Freudian slip. Just because I undeleted the cats, doesn't neccessarily mean I worship on their holy ground. But, heck, it's nice to make you laugh for a change :) --Doc 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Our family seems to like horses better, given how much we spend on them... I think pschemp likes cats though, if that helps. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


That DRV

Hi Doc,

I'm actually sorry to see the early close, only because I was hoping for a calm discussion of the "pending speedy notice." I think that could have gone somewhere, and it was all your idea. :) Sorry if you feel commenters were mean to you (per Mackenson's remark), and I certainly wasn't trying to be.

I will be changing the wording of your closure a bit, I'm afraid. Whether you realized it or not, there's no need to cite WP:IAR there; Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and practice both firmly embrace the idea that a deleting admin can reverse himself at any time. See, DRV isn't all that bureaucratic anyway! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made my peace with the other party. And i've never thought of you as anything but civil. --Doc 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

R Pollack

Whatever the merits of the content of the article, using edit summaries to abuse or dismiss other editors is unacceptable [1]. Edit summaries should summarise edits and nothing more. Continue in this vein and you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Please review WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, and conduct yourself with more civility in future. Thanks. --Doc 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Why are you issuing threats? What do you mean by abuse or dismiss? Please explain yourself? Why are you preventing me from correcting vandalism? Are you acquainted with Wangi and are you acting on his behalf? R Pollack

Replied. --Doc 11:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


OTRS

Now that you're back, we would very much like to have you take a turn at WP:OTRS. We are presently recruiting seasoned Wikipedians with a history of keeping their cool for 90 day tours of duty in the snake-infested, quicksand-laden swamp that is the reality of OTRS. Would you care to join? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Doc 11:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Your message to me...

has been answered on my talk page. No further notice of this conversation will be given here to reduce clutter. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Doc 11:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Being a prat at DrV

I was being a prat and I'm sorry. I've struck most of the comments I made at the DrV, they were way over the top, and I want to personally apologise for offense given you. I don't want you to pull out of discussing things but I do want you to listen to people before they get so frustrated they lose it and say things they clearly should not say in tones they should not use. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Doc 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarify

Excuse me? Can you tell me exactly when I have EVER vandilized on wikipedia? --Prisonnet 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This [7] was hardly a useful edit. --Doc 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Um...it's true. Perhaps travel there being ill-advised was an exaggeration, but Miami is a contaminated city, google it. --Prisonnet 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh stop it. Your edit (and its positioning) was clearly not NPOV and was disruptive of the article--Doc 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc

We aren't bound by precedent, but by policy... and "policy is what we do", so... I'll let you fill in the dots there.

I have reverted to my closure, primarily because you had already commented in the debate. Remember, it's better if a neutral party closes things. And before you claim that I'm not neutral, consider that I have more reason to hate DRV than anybody -- I've been doing it for awhile, and there are plenty of times I hate the workload. If a workable organic review process can be found, I'm for it. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted. Speak later - off for now. --Doc 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on your message, I don't think you read what I wrote. Let me repeat. MfD isn't used for policy proposals -- this is "policy" of the form "policy is what we do" (your own definition) ;). I already explained why I hate DRV quite a bit quite often. If you can find a workable organic alternative, I'll be very happy. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm quite bemused that your message merely raised objections I had already answered in my message to you.


One substantial reason not to delete DRV through MfD is that the MfD notice at the top of the page is a potential confusion for any editor. "What? This could be deleted? Where do I post my question/appeal?" If you feel consensus for a policy proposal to change DRV could never be obtained, why should it be deleted at all? Consensus governs.
Really, though, check the DRV archives -- MfDs on policy questions (to delete proposed policies or other major process pages) are speedy closed all the time. My reaction to your bemusement is simply a shrug. This nomination was nothing unusual, nor was its closure. Since you aren't versed in "wiki-process", by your own inclination, you think this is a novel question, and my closure shows self-interest. It simply doesn't, as an empirical matter. Give me a good alternative, and I'll delete DRV. I feel a lot like Lar, except that I'd rather have an idea in hand before axing the mechanics, mainly so newbies aren't confused.
See, I do believe in due process, but I'm not in love with process for its own sake, despite the view of some anti-process folks. I just want to see things done fairly and efficiently; I don't care about particulars, unless the particulars significantly affect those two core values. Xoloz 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


External links at Brian Leiter

Hi. You just deleted 4 external links from our article on Brian Leiter. I'm guessing that you didn't notice that 3 of them were to Prof. Leiter's own blog. I'd argue that the fourth one is acceptable because it's a blogger writing about Prof. Leiter's approach to blogging. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, CWC(talk) 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are dubious. It is certainly OK to have a link to the subject's own blog, but that is already there. Blogs critical of a subject are generally not allowed see WP:EL.--Doc 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the howls of the majority...

WP:NOT a democracy. 1ne 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --Doc 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not what? A democracy? Alright. 1ne 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree. --Doc 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


The Drishtipat Page and Dhakaiya propaganda

Why am I being threatened with being blocked? I want to add ==>> 'Controversy surrounding Drishtipat' The overwhelming number of British Bangladeshis originate from Sylhet Division (comprising the districts of Sylhet, Habiganj, Moulvi Bazaar and Shunamganj). Drishtipat has been accused [1]of highlighting social, economic and human rights issues in the Dhaka region, to the detriment of Sylhet, as it's membership in London is composed entirely of Bangladeshis originating from the Dhaka region. In response to these accusations the administrators of the Drishtipat Blog site have deleted those threads which show their exclusive nature, rather than dealing with the problems within their organisation. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:aR9W8ECbNV4J:www.drishtipat.org/blog/2006/07/27/monica-ali/+Drishtipat+sylhet+ali&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2 I don't accept modz who keep editing my work (like Ragib) because they are from the Dhakaiya Bengali ethnic group....opponents of my own ethnic group. In addition, how iz it that forums and blogz from the groups in question themselves count for nothing? In other Wiki articles like the MPACUK one they are permitted. This is double standards!!!!!!

replied on talk --Doc 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Non-substitution of indefinite block templates

Hello Doc glasgow. I've restored the do-not-subst notice on {{indefblockeduser}} and noted the reason on the talk page. Since the categories have been deleted, substituting the template orphans the page. Orphaned pages cannot be maintained by bots or deleted at a later date, which leads to a situation in which thousands of pages are forever indexed by search engines but lost to Wikipedia itself, and presents a significant risk of malicious indexing. There is general agreement that indefinitely blocked users should not be tagged forever, although there is disagreement over how long they should be tagged. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems to make some sense. I habitually subst all templates, and was slightly annoyed with the appearance of an unexplained 'though shalt not' when I did so. --Doc 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Scottandrew-editwar-hutchins

Googling Scottandrewhutchins reads like a bad murder mystery >:( He's been baiting me and acting like a troll on Charun, causing edit-wars and having the page protected (conveniently with his strange POV and wording). His favourite word is "incompetent" which he uses on me and others even outside of WP, which I take to indicate "childhood scarring and low sense of self-worth".

Scott's now playing a numbers game with references ("Scott 12:Glen 0 nyah nyah" nonsense) and I'm not interested in wasting my time with his attention-craving lunacy anymore nor doing research for irrational trolls. I've already cited valid references by Etruscanologists and classical authors supporting my view of a non-demonic, non-rightwing-Christian concept of Etruscan Charun and their version of Hades. I've found others but what's the point? I'm just not getting through and the article is clearly suffering.

When Scott edits *50 times* in five hours on the same topic of Charun, ending finally with a really manic two-hour "editfest" of some 32 or 33 posts without bathroom break as anyone can see in Charun's history, I don't think it's wrong to make a judgement call of OCD at this point.

I've tried "third parties" but all of them lack knowledge or interest in Etruscan studies as usual so I can't get a decent conversation out of them. The greatest weakness of Wikipedia is in such unpopular topics as these that few people are capable to fend off from vandals and baseless nonsense. I want academics opinions to be duely represented without schizophrenic wording like "Charun loves violence" as it reads now. He's simply taking everything out of context and misunderstanding his own citations. But of course he doesn't understand because his *initial* interest in Charun is so transparently linked to a grown man's obsession with Monster in My Pocket children's toys with same name. He even made his own website about it. Dunno why, but hey, to each his own.

Overall, Scott just doesn't seem to understand the concept of "reader beware" nor the difference between "opinion" and "fact" and treats new perspectives offered by others as hostile attacks on his ego. That's my heads-up. I'm taking a mega mega Wikibreak. --Glengordon01 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Oh by the way, I mention all this because I noticed you were having similar troubles, albeit not so severe. --Glengordon01 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not my subject sorry, have you tried a subject RfC?--Doc 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been beaten to the punch and the troll has RfCed me: [[8]]! What a waste of time Wikipedia is.

It's turned into a mob now, since I've cited references that are repeatedly dismissed without logical reasons ever stated. The very 3rd parties that are supposed to help are on the one hand admitting they too nothing on the subject, yet feel arrogantly confident enough to dismiss these two sources (Etruscanologist Massimo Pallottino and Arnobius speaking directly on the topics of Charun and death) which couldn't be any more relevant to the topic.

In contrast, Scott lists things like Jeff Rovin, who's only a sci-fi writer. You don't have to be an expert to see what's going on considering his crankiness with you and CanadianCaesar. So I'm listing off his own offenses as we speak and they are numerous. I'm listing accusations of "liar" to you and CanadianCaesar, "incompetent" to me, as well as his subsequent block, as part of the many violations against him. If you want to help out, great.

Please understand that I'm in a very hopeless position right now, since I'm being attacked on all sides for being "incompetent" (despite WP:Civility) for "lack" of sources (despite two already and is there a time limit on sources??! why are people going kookoo??) and then my statements are misconstrued to mean "I'm unwilling to cooperate with 3rd parties" which is mad, because what worth are 3rd parties who don't know what the subject is about?

Whatever. I've heard of academics leaving this loonybin system in disgust so I'm in good company. Help out or don't, I'm not surprised either way. It was just a crazy thought considering your own problem with him already. Thanks. --Glengordon01 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


RfA

Doc, please drop it. You know it won't stand; it only serves to cause ill-feeling and confusion; and it's up to the bureaucrats to make decisions about RfAs. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning, it only 'won't stand' if people like you insist in reverting to a 'vote' format. It isn't a vote, so we don't need to count them - and yes, it is up the crats not the arithmetic, that's my point. Formatting it like an election is confusing, when it isn't one. --Doc 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If the bureaucrats want to regard it as arithmetic, that's up to them. If they want to use the numbers simply to guide them, ditto. There's a wikiproject on this somewhere, so that'd be a good place to add your views. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No thanks, that's a waste of time. It has been over-discussed - it is time to make the format comply with policy. Then folk will stop getting confused. If 'crats want to do arithmetic 1) they shouldn't 2) I'm sure they can count without your help. --Doc 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a better idea for those who want it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


edit to T-Shirt

Though I was not the one to revert it, I noticed your edit [[9]] to T-Shirt. There is dicussion related to this picture which I would ask you to participate [[10]]. First, I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Though I agree the picture is somewhat gratuitous, it serves as an example of corporate/personal branding use of t-shirts and brand loyality. I also agree that a better picture should be used, but until one is found, I will suggest that the current one be used.--Mattarata 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything to discuss. No we're not censored. But the picture is gratuitous, adds nothing to the already well-illustrated article. 'It serves as an example of corporate/personal branding', give me a break, this is just an excuse to get tits on the page. Inserting that image is little better than vandalism. --Doc 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User: Louis Shum

Why have you deleted my user space? And banned me from editing? You deleted my user space for "probable libels" and and ban me from editing because I made "no useful edits". I was not aware one can only be a wikipedian if one makes "useful edits". And I similarly cannot understand your reason for deleting my userspace! What I write in my userspace about myself is my business; why have you removed it? It is not libel, I write it about myself! I put up a vprotection tag because someone was continually blanking my user page, and then YOU come along and delete it! This is not what I had intended! Please restore my userspace --130.216.191.184 07:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see our explanation of what Wikipedia is not. It isn't a webhost for you to write about yourself, or as I strongly suspect slander another. Try myspace. --Doc 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand this. But I am still blocked from editing. Can you please unblock me? Thanks. --130.216.191.184 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Create a new account - I'm not convinced that you are Louis Shum. --Doc 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Nor am I convinced you are a Doctor or your name is Glasgow. What difference does it make? Its a username, not an identity register.--130.216.191.184 05:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Inappropriate user name

Sorry to bug you personally, but I can't figure out where to report this, never having done this before and being uable to locate the right page (IS there a centralized "Where do I report specific problems" page?).

I've come across this user name: User:Steve Signorelli Fucks Kids. Wildly inappropriate, obviously.

--Calton | Talk 08:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It has already been blocked for a bad username. Report such thuings on WP:AIV any admin will kill them quickly with a 'usernameblock'. --Doc 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


International Institute of Tropical Agriculture reverts

Good luck with the reverts on this article! The person contributing the (in my opinion) copyrighted material is getting a bit upset about people reverting "his" content about "his" organisation. See User talk:83.229.97.250. Rich257 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He may well own the copyright to the website, but he'll need to go through permissions to verify it.--Doc 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

recent ANI posts

Was this really a good idea, especially after you've just been advised against doing the same thing? Let's try not to engage in drama-seeking behavior, ok? —Nate Scheffey 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Yes, comparing JamesF and arbcom to the 'Committee on Public Saftey', who instigated the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, is ranting. Worse, it is insane, offensive, overly-dramatic, trolling behaviour. So, don't knock on my door.--Doc 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to help maintain a civil discussion, which you apparently have no intention of conducting. It must be difficult to be the only person defending Wikipedia against such insane trolls as Geogre. Apologies for knocking. —Nate Scheffey 10:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you think his contributions are sane and resonable?--Doc 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If you mean his contributions to the encyclopedia, I find the task of researching his 15,000+ edits daunting, however, he has been a major part of a lot more Featured Articles than you or me. If you mean his recent contribution to ANI I think he is expressing a valid view that is shared by several others, and which should be treated with civility and respect, rather than being dismissed as insane. —Nate Scheffey 10:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the arbcom to a mass-murdering Junta is insane, doesn't matter how many contributions you have. Claiming to be able to speak 'for the people' is arrogant and deluded. I disrespect people who do that.--Doc 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As I disrespect people whose sole rhetorical technique is questioning the sanity of their opponents. There is clearly nothing left to say here. Enjoy your continued incivility. —Nate Scheffey 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
And yours. --Doc 10:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


reversion

I'd reverted your user page blanking initially because I'd assumed it to be vandalism. Following up, I don't know of any precedent or guideline that would dictate the blanking of an inactive contributor's user page. I guess my indignantion stems from the idea that I could become inactive due to several prevalent circumstances and I would be pretty incensed if I returned after an expended period of inactivity to find that somebody had taken it upon themselves to effectively remove my existence from Wikipedia. There are enumerable user pages remaining for users who've been inactive as long ago as early 2002, and yet no apparent effort has been made to expunge those pages — which begs to question why this one (only inactive for four months) warrants this special consideration. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assume anything is vandalism. Especially when I left a clear edit summary. You are entitled to disagree and revert - but not to roll back. Roll back is ONLY for clear vandalism. Beyond that, if the user returns, and he may never, he can unblank it. I refrained from deleting it. --Doc 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're making a difference between "reverting" and "rolling back", both terms which I would apply to my actions. Why am I "entitled" to do one and not the other when they're ... the same? 140.175.214.33 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
when you revert, you treat the other person's edit as being in good faith, and you leave an edit summary explaining what you are doing - or 'see talk' and you put an explanation there. That initiates a discussion if the other user disagreees with your revert. When you use automatic rollback scripts there is no explanation in the edit summary (just reverted version by xxxx to xxx) that must only be used when the edit you're reverting is clearly and obviously vandalism and deserves and requires no explanation for its reversal. As a rule of thumb - don't rollback established editors at all, and others only when it is self-evident vandalism. OK. --Doc 15:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User%7EDoc_glasgow_Sep_06_9bc8.html"