User talk:Doc glasgow/02Feb06

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

Looking for some help!

An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146. The admin is named Gamaliel. This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert. He must be holding a grudge. It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars. The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy. My pal added appropiate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC. The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal. In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light. Thank you193.120.103.205 06:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your friend is a pepetual edit-warrior, under an arbcom injunction. He hardly looks like a victim to me. --Doc ask? 09:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of articles by Drmike

Hi! I noticed that you deleted Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School and WRUV, likely on the grounds that the article creator and sole contributor (User:Drmike) requested deletion. But here's the thing: By contributing, he has agreed to license his contributions under the GFDL. Therefore, the work does not belong to him and thus he can't really decide to "pull" his work whenever he feels like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". I feel this is not the case here, and request that you restore the articles in question and un-close the AFD debates. Regards, Punkmorten 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Please familiarize yourself with the entire situation (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2) before making snide remarks about kettles. Thank you. Radiant_>|< 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with that. But, regardless, you shouldn't have protected a page to your version. If Netaholic was in breach of his injunction, then ask another admin to deal with him. My rule of thumb is, that the moment you edit a page, you cease to be an admin with regard to that page. --Doc ask? 12:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While I can understand that opinion, there is one problem with that. If one sees a disruptive user, one can simply step in and block him, and nobody would contest that. However, if one would take the more reasonable approach and talk to the user, and he responds by being angry and insulting, then suddenly people may claim a conflict of interest (and worse, if one then asks an outside admin, that outside admin may also decide to be reasonable and discuss, and end up flamed). So in other words, the more people hold your opinion, the more admins are encouraged to be harsh rather than reasonable. Radiant_>|< 13:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa - (never be a judge in your own case). Netaholic (perhaps very wrongly) reverted your move - after an edit-war you judged him to be in violation of the rules and protected the page. That's just not good, it is simply bad process, and you are normally the stickle for progess Justice must not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. --Doc ask? 13:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the ArbCom has judged him to be in violation of the rules. We block people that are in violation of rules, we protect pages to stop edit wars. In normal cases I would agree with your point, but being subjected to an ArbCom ban for instances such as these is exactly what is making the difference.
      • I am not normally a stickle for process, but if you want me to play strictly by the rules, I can simply state that Netoholic is banned from Wikipedia and Template namespaces, and on that grounds I would be well within my rights to block him for ban evasion, and revert all his contributions there since they were made by a banned user. The community has been more lenient than that, as have I. Had I not been lenient, I would not have been under fire now. Radiant_>|< 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I'll drop it. Thanks for replying. I guess my problem isn't really so much with what you did, as the appearance it creates. Not everyone will be familiar with the Arbcom case, so all they see is an admin, who is respected and held to have integrity, protecting his version in a dispute. ('Can I do that too?') Had you asked me, or anyone else, they would probably done exactly what you did at your request. But it might have looked better. Anyway, all's right now - and if you move the page again I won't interfere. (Unless it is to protect your version against Netaholic's injunction violation.) Thanks. --Doc ask? 13:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry

Don't worry, Doc, no harm done. -Splashtalk 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Best way to determine concensus on album notability

Hi, I'm currently in disagreement over the notability of individual Now That's What I Call Music! albums; basically, I don't believe that they're notable, and someone else does.

We're also in disagreement over whether the title should be (e.g.) "Now That's What I Call Music! 17", when there are at least two totally different albums of the same name, the UK 1984 double-LP/cassette and the US 2000 single-CD (*if* we're going to have the articles, I'd like to see them done that way).

I've posted a comment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, but didn't get much response (one person, also against individual "Now!"s). Do you recommend AfDing a "test case", or something else? I'd appreciate your advice as an administrator. Thanks.

Fourohfour 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea about the details, this isn't my field. But as regards process, you have two options. You could Afd as a test case, but you won't neccessarily get the most informed audience responding -and the result is unpredictable. Your other option is to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment, under the Media, Arts and Literature heading. I'd probably recommend using RfC first (although how many comments you get isn't guarenteed). Follow the instructions on the page, describe the dispute (as neutrally as possible) and give it a few days. Let me know if I can help further. --Doc ask? 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Fourohfour 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use tagged images used in userpages

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I had no idea that this policy exsisted. I have now fixed my userpage using a public domain image source. incog 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, we live and learn. --Doc ask? 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the User:hatesbillgates Template

Hi Doc_glasgow. I checked the deletion log and found you had deleted the template I made for my new category, based on WP:NPA, I assume. I had already reworded it once to comply with NPA and I did not consider the wording on that template to be a personal attack. Would you allow that template to be recreated if it was reworded to something like "This user does not support Bill Gates or Microsoft"? Thanks - Thor Malmjursson 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I personaly see no need for such a template. How does it help the encyclopedia? Put a userbox on you page if you really must, but don't use the template space for a template that serves no purpose than to disparage its subject. It isn't a question of what I'd allow, but what is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Jimbo has indicated that userboxes expressing POVs are a bad idea altogether. I will speedy anything that looks like an attack. --Doc ask? 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that doc. I understand where you are coming from on that, and as for Jimbo indicating what he did, that I agree with to. I guess I didnt think before I went ahead and created it. The category has gone as well, that was removed by Freakofnurture. At least there's nothing left of what I did, other than this conversation! One thing I will say though, with no disrespect to you ($deity forbid, I would never do that), What purpose to the encyclopedia do templates such as "User is Probably going to hell" serve? Just curious on that one...!  :) Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Talk
Thanks for the response. It is good that you've been willing to think this through, and I appreciate that. To answer your question about 'user going to hell', none - no use whatsoever. But as policy stands at the moment, anything resembling an attack will be speedied as harmful, and POV announcing templates have been declared harmful by Jimbo (although they are not being deleted as it stands). So 'usergoing to hell' is useless, but not yet declared harmful. --Doc ask? 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Hello, I had a question about policy and was wondering if you could assist me. I noticed that you put the 3RR caution on DreamGuy's page. Does 3RR also apply to talk pages? I have been attempting to communicate with DreamGuy about some personal attacks, but every time I place a message on the User_talk:DreamGuy page, he just deletes it. Two other people have also tried communicating with him, and he deletes their messages too. I think there have been about 7 reverts of his own userpage by him over the last 24 hours (feel free to check for yourself in the history). Should I make a 3RR claim? I'm not sure how to proceed. Thank you, Elonka 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, blanking your own tak page is considered poor form, but it is not against policy. If has has blanked your message, you are safe in assuming he has read it. --Doc ask? 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have any advice on how I should proceed with dispute resolution? Elonka 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Depends on the nature of the dispute. Best normally to broaden it out and involve others. Take a look at WP:DR and if that doesn't help, let me know if I can help further. --Doc ask? 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. After reading and re-reading and re-reading the various options available (very confusing!), I am going ahead and creating a page which can be used for an RfC or RfAr. The draft is available here User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute. I've never done one of these before, so if you have any suggestions on how it should be constructed to be most effective, I would be grateful for any assistance. Thank you. Elonka 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Napster

You removed the image I used for the Napster userbox I had created.

I had not realized that it was a violation of the Fair use policy, and I thank you for pointing it out. =)

If I may ask, however, now that I realize I cannot use the image, how can I delete the userbox? Nevermind, I decided to keep it. Anyhow, thanks again! Kareeser|Talk! 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, we all learn something new. Have a cookie :) --Doc ask? 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagemove to Materialism

I'm afraid that this pagemove, from {{User:UBX/Bright}} to "user Materialist" is completely unacceptable (and not just because I'd prefer if you'd made the template's name "user materialist" to keep it consistent with the names of other, similar templates, and to avoid grammatical inconsistency). Read the bright (noun) article—"bright" is derived from the Age of Enlightenment, and is thus almost completely unrelated to the other connotation of "bright" to mean simply "intelligent". Your move is exactly identical to if someone had moved Template:User gay to Template:User homosexual (rather than creating a separate "user homosexual" template and letting people choose how to identify themselves) on the basis that it is POV to describe homosexuals as "happy"; it completely misses all nuances and meaning of the phrase, and, more importantly, is an attempt to enforce Politically Correct self-identification phrases on people who specifically went out of their way to not identify as "materialists". Even more importantly, materialism is not synonymous with the Bright movement; read naturalism (philosophy) for a better fit.

I'd have no objection whatsoever to you creating a new template called "user materialism", but if you think that "User Bright" is inherently and should be redirected to that new template, this is a controversial enough move (and one that surely will meet enormous opposition, as it essentially attempts to forcefully redefine how a subculture chooses to identify itself based on a single user's views on terminology they use) that you should, if anything (and I'm not convinced that anything is merited, since this is such an obviously bad move), bring it up on WP:TfD so we can find out what others think, and especially find out what people think who use the Bright template!

Incidentally, I also don't at all like the "Bright" self-label, and even though it near-perfectly describes my own philosophy, it just sounds like too cult-ish of a name for me to ever use that template to identify myself. So I'd gladly pick your template over the "Bright" one any day of the week, personally. But that doesn't mean that I would ever try to force others to use a different term if that's the one they want. The correct move would have been to create viable alternatives to "User Bright" like "user naturalist" and "user materialist" and let the users describe between them for themselves; forcing your own personal terminological preferences on others in such a grey-area case is bad policy and will lead to needless revert wars in the long run. -Silence 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get real. 'Bright' may have some philosophical meanings, but the intention of this is obviously to claim that intelligent people don't believe in the spiritual and ergo religious people arn't 'bright'. Gay is a term in wide usage and not comparable. --Doc ask? 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If "bright" isn't a term in wide usage, then nominate bright (noun) for deletion on the grounds that it's not noteworthy. If you're just discussing degrees of "wideness of usage", then I have to ask where and how you draw the line. Essentially, you're saying that you wouldn't have permitted people to self-identify as "gay" before it was commonplace and widely accepted for almost all homosexuals to do so, but you would have allowed it afterwards; as long as they're a minority group, what they like being called doesn't matter. While there are certainly standards for how popular a movement should be before we make a userbox for it (there's no point inventing a movement for the userbox itself that didn't already exist, for example), your standards for term commonality seem to be set unreasonably, and inconsistently (plenty of other templates we have are of less common terms) high.
Also, it is only your opinion that "Bright" is intended solely as a way to mock people who believe in the supernatural or spiritual. If you feel that this opinion is noteworthy enough, then make a template like "user antibright" stating that you object to the usage of the term "Bright" on the grounds that it's offensive (because of the positive connotations of other uses of the word "bright", in its adjective form). I'd find this somewhat silly and over-trivial thing to make a template for, but if enough people used the template, it could certainly stick around. But that, again, would be a template reflecting your opinion, not reflecting a solid, rock-hard fact; trying to define a religious (or irreligious, in this case) movement out of existence just because you object to its name is simply not acceptable, and if you think people should stop calling themselves "Bright", and feel strongly about this (as you seem to), then your obvious course of action is to send an e-mail to the founders of the movement, and/or send messages to othe people using User Bright telling them that you are offended by the use of the word "bright" as a self-description, and offering a possibly alternative (like {{user philosophical naturalist}}) if they're interested in describing their philosophical views in a clearer way, with a term that you feel is less loaded. And if they aren't, you'll then leave them to their business. Forcing people to accept a view or self-description which they don't is not the way to go; plenty of brights would completely reject the term "materialist" as a self-description for a variety of reasons.
So, there. I've offered you tons and tons of options for ways to deal with your discomfort with the word "bright"; complaining to the movement itself on the issue, nominating the "Bright" template for TfD, talking to the people who use the "Bright" template about suitable alternatives, etc. That should give you plenty of stuff to keep busy with if you really think this silly, semantic, connotational triviality is such a huge deal. But the one thing you shouldn't do is try to misrepresent others' views and terminological preferences based on your own views and terminological preferences. That can only lead to bad stuff happening, like rendering the template useless (since it no longer reflects the views of those who use it) and causing unnecessary wording disputes. -Silence 15:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

what happend to the...

...List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/debated? grazon 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea . What's the context? --Doc ask? 16:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

there was a list of them I went away for a week and when I came back it was gone. grazon 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. I deleted the article per the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/debated --Doc ask? 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Essenes

Will you take a look at this, please? I have asked for references on the talkpage. There may well be some modern sect like this, but referencing to works on Qumran etc hardly supports that, or is even very relevant. u p p l a n d 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_delete_deletionists

Please explain why you deleted this template, and then protected the page. Was there something wrong with the template? Your deletion seems to be uncalled for. I assume that you have determined that the template was violating some guideline or policy? Or you just don't like it? The expression of opinion using templates in User space is not grounds for deletion - please explain your decision. This deletion appears to be a violation of WP:POINT, but I will WP:AGF for the time being. --Dschor 19:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Lamington-Child

  • Hey Doc, I was looking through lamington's edit history and it appears that of the three main space edits he's made two have been validd (sp and an addition). The spoiler tag might have been a newbie mistake. I think you should re-evaluate this guy.--God of War 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wouldn't normally block anyone for one (or even two) bad edits (although hardly a n00b 'mistake' - he knew about the template and placed it on a high profile article). However, I blocked him for his statement on his user page (which you may have missed since I blanked it): My goal here is to see how much vandalism I can do without getting banned. Pages vandalised: -Gothic drag queen (Deleted) -Jesus (Reverted) Only two so far, but I'm working on it.
I'd say that's quite sufficient - if he posts a retraction I can always unblock. If he wants to change tack, the system will let him create a fresh account, and have a fresh start in 24 hours. --Doc ask? 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay I see that now - you did the right thing.--God of War 01:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion

...would be interested in your feedback. Barring significant opposition, it's going for a test run soon. Radiant_>|< 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

policy proposal

Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:

--Victim of signature fascism 20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

Since the wording on the template was different, it doesn't fall under CSD G4 as it is not "substantially identical". In fact, it was a specific attempt to address the criticisms on DRV. Not only that, but the original deletion was out of process to begin with. Please undelete and leave it intact. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Doc glasgow, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockfest

All the following have edits (mostly deleted) to male bikini wearing, which has now been deleted eight times and is currently wasting even more of the community's time on WP:DRV. I am unable to find a single good-faith edit from any of them. What would you do?

My inclination is just to indef-block the whole sorry bunch. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You could request a check user, but that's perhaps a waste of someone's time. If there are no good edits, you could just indef block (no-one will object), but if this is a bunch of one-use socks, you may be wasting your own time as the accounts will lie dormant anyway. Grief, why is this even on DRV, it is pure vandalism. --Doc ask? 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clerk stuff

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sorry to see that this issue has gotten so emotionally frustrating for some people. >Radiant< 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect you, Doc, and more than that I like you. Which is why I'm putting this here. I haven't even bothered to place a note like this on, um, anyone else's talk.
Err. I made an overheated statment that mentioned KM. I also followed that up with a detailed list of suggestions that were all impersonal. I followed that up with an explicit statement that the objections were not about Kelly, and JTK even said he beleived me. I've looked through four archives and barring my "crock of shit" comment and Xed's fanciful allegations, I don't see any evidence of anyone baying for blood.
Some aspects of this remind me of her RfB, where the oppose votes of myself, Radiant, and Alkivar were publicly dismissed as being simply because we "didn't like her". Whenever someone makes a statment like that, it strongly give the appearance that they simply don't want to listen to what the other person is saying.
There's been an odd chain of agression: 1)Tony and I spark it up. The perception becomes that I have personal problems with him. 2)Kelly savages me over it. I try to work it out with her. She savages me again. The perception becomes that I have personal problems with her. 3)Now Ambi regularly broadsides me in IRC because I have a "problem" with Kelly.
I'd hate to see you added to this chain, Doc. I often say things in haste. That doesn't mean I've made anyone an object for hate.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace be with you

Can I say, "And also with you"? Thank you. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting the old page in my userspace. Can I put a redirect at the old page location? -- Mwalcoff 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the retreval, but no, you can't redirect. Redirects from the article space to userspace or wikipedia space are heavily discouraged. --Doc ask? 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_02Feb06_2e64.html"