User talk:Doc glasgow/13Oct05

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

Lost and Delirious at Wikipedia

Actually i'm not sure what's the matter with adding undoubful better information on the Wikipedia database than there is shown by now. In case we did cross any rules of Wikipedia, we're sorry but we've already ask this and got an positive feedback on September 24, 2005. In case you don't have read what you did delete, it might be helpful to learn what the movie is about and recognize, that the information we gave is much more substantial than the one that currently is shown on the site.

Greetings!!!

From: Wikipedia information team [1] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:37 PM To: Stef Subject: Re: [Ticket#2005092410003319] your informtion about the movie Lost and Delirious at: http: [...]

Dear Stef,

Thank you for your mail.

We have the impression, that at least this subject was not handled with the reasonable care and the result now is suboptimal. We think, an undoubtful reputable organization like yours should improve its operational procedure if you really are interested to win people over improving your database. > Thank you for contributing to our site.

Our website is a wiki. Editors add, and sometimes remove, information. If you think your information was removed wrongly, I suggest that you go to the article and click on the "Discuss this page" link. You can then explain why you think it was wrongly removed. If other editors agree, they may decide to restore it. The information you added is not lost and doesn't need to be added again. If necessary other editors can restrieve it from the article history, which is retained by our database.

Yours sincerely, Tony Sidaway

I have replied to what I think this is about on the IP's talk page. --Doc (?) 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

CCDF

Thanks for restoring it. Of course you're right it's rubbish - perhaps I'm being too pedantic about the process? I'd appreciate hearing your views on this. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, process needs guarding, but I'd like to think I was within it. I've been swinging by afd - and deleting quite a lot of stuff that's clearly WP:CSD compliant (granted, this case was not as clear as most). My rationale is that the articles should not have been listed in the first place, as he community has already decided that they wish such artilces 'speedy deleted' under the CSD. By removing them, I hope to focus afd thoughts on those articles that need consideration. There is enought work for afd without leaving speediable junk. Incidently, I am also, too often, removing speedy tags from articles that should be sent to afd, but aren't being. That needs more pedantry IMO. But thanks. --Doc (?) 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Incidently, speedies from afd should be less problematic than most. They are transparently done (at least to admins), if I speedy articles directly, it is unlikely anyone will check the deletion log. --Doc (?) 19:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

the correct manner for Wikipedia articles for Lost and Delirious

Dear Doc!

Thank you for your reply on the information we try to add as an article on the movie "Lost and Delirious".

Our aim is not so much to see the link to our site on Wikipedia, but to improve the information on Wikipedia shown there about the movie. We refer to what is written on the Wikipedia site: "This drama film-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

Actually we did place our entry at external links because that's where Wikipedia users can find more information than it's possible to show on Wikipedia. Over 80% of our article is quoted from the original press kit or interviews with the directors or movie makers. So we disagree to consider this information as "crap" as those people who deleted the article did.

Anyways it were only 2 people (who might not be very famiCriteria_for_speedy_deletionliar with the movie or are not really interested to improve Wikipedia by deleting articles without explaining what bothers).

If we should have missed a tone or as you say missed correct manners for Wikipedia articles, we kindly ask for your points of critic, so we can change that. If there is a beta reader (service) we'd be glad to contact this person.

If we need to get an account, we will do that otherwise we do not want to bother. Our aim is to support Wikipedia as much as supporting the movie "Lost and Delirious".

kind regards,

stef chairman A Tribute To Lost And Delirious mailto:stef@a-tribute-to-lost-and-delirious.com

ps: we'd be glad for an answer here or via email, in case the ip address should change and your answer gets lost. As told we really don't want to bother with an account as long as we only can support with our small article.

A few things - first, it is really better if you do create a user account. It really is no bother at all, and it is easier to communicate with other users. Plus, folk will take your contributions more seriously. A lot of contributions by anonymous IP's are vandalism - and folk can tend to assume the worst (as I did). Wikipedia is about neutral, factual articles on subjects that are encyclopedic. By all means contribute objective information about your project, but remember that wikipedia is not here for promotion. As to syle, you might like to review some of the advice given in Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I hope that helps. --Doc (?) 20:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Doc!

Thanks for your fast and now really elaborated advice.

We'll revise our article, delete the probably bothering positive/promoting parts, will read the guidelines and upload it then again.

kind regards

  • On a different note thanks also for the quick vandalism reversion on my userpage, much obliged! Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

(none)

Non of your business. The Sextant article on how to construct a simple sextant is mine. Now if Roy doesn't erase it I will.

Ok here's the thing. That article is mine. So please, erase it. Or rewrite it in your own words because those are mine. How are people supposed to know that I wrote it? It isn't fair.
So... were can I find the edit history of the article, anyway? It's not like I can find it! (all unsigned by 201.145.99.216 (talk • contribs) - I replied on his talk page. --Doc (?) 08:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Gareth Davies (Preacher)

I have noticed that you have deleted my post about Gareth Davies, my Grandfather, who passed way earlier this year.

You have deleted the article because you belive that it was copied from the Banner of Truth website.

Can i inform you that Geoff Thomas the author of the article on the Banner of Truth website has actully copied the tribute that was on the funeral programme.

My article here was based on the tribute printed in the the funeral programme NOT on Geoff Thomas is article on the Banner of Truth website.

It seems therefore that I and Geoff has used the same tribute and that you have though wrongly that i have copied Geoff's work when in reality Geoff has only writen his article based on the tribute in the funeral programme.

As a close realation to Gareth Davies i insist that you pCriteria_for_speedy_deletionost my article back up - and should the Banner of Truth website complain i would be more than happy to prove to them that the article by Geoff is mearly a re-vamp of the tribute give out in my grandfathers funeral.

Yours truly, Rhys Llwyd 144.124.16.33 (talk • contribs)

(Also posted on 144.124.16.33's talk page). Thanks for your note. I've looked into the matter. Actually, I didn't delete your article, I marked it as a possible copyright violation back in May. It would then have been deleted by another administrator, after checking my suggestion. The reason was, as you say, that the text was identical to that appearing on the 'Banner of Truth' website [2]. At the bottom of that website, you will notice that Banner of Truth are claiming copyright over the text. You claim that you hold the copyright to this article. I have no reason to doubt you. However, you will appreciate that Wikipedia cannot take unsubstantiated claims to copyright (by persons whose identity, unfortunately, cannot be established), over the assertion of a reputable website. You suggest that we restore the article, and wait to see if Banner of Truth object, but I am afraid that is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.

If we are to clear copyright, you must persuade Banner of Truth to remove its copyright claim on the article from its website, or we must contact Banner of Truth and get a copyright disclaimer from them. I am willing to help you do that.

However, there is little point in going to all that work, if someone else will then delete the article on other grounds. Reading through the deleted article (which as an administrator I can do), I notice a number of things. Firstly, I take it you are aware, that articles you write here may well, and probably will be, altered by other editors. Wikipedia stresses 'Neutral point of view' WP:NPOV, and statements like: 'He preached with theological discernment' - which are, in the end, a matter of opinion (even if you and I may agree with them) are unlikely to survive. Secondly, and more importantly, Wikipedia has policies on what should be included in this encyclopaedia. One of them states 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' (see WP:NOT). Subjects of biographical articles, which do not show that the person has objectively some degree of importance, are liable to be nominated for deletion by other editors. You might like to take a look at the policy at WP:BIO. If, having considered these policies, you still think your article belongs here, and you are willing to risk other users editing it, or even trying to delete it again, on other grounds, let me know and I'll try to help. However, you could get round the copyright problem by simply slightly re-writing the article in other words - so that it does not look like it has been copied from Banner. Although that might seem unnecessary, since you wrote the original text, it might be a lot less work, and quicker, than trying to clear the copyright hurdle.

I'll wait for your response. --Doc (?) 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Cases with offline sources are usually immensely hard to third-party verify and seem to sit on CP basically indefinitely. From looking at the original copyvio source, it seems that only the later part of it, following "supplied us with this information" is taken from the service (particularly since one supposes the need for translation would otherwise have been mentioned soone). The rest is, by presumed implication at least, original work by the Banner of Truth Trust which we cannot display. All revisions of the article contain seem to contain the same mixture, and I don't think they should be undeleted absent an explanation of why the Banner of Truth Trust article is so phrased. I think then that Rhy Llwyd could reasonably repost the translated-from-the-service portion of the article since that clearly doesn't infringe the copyright in question and we can AGF with the claim to the rights. We have Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation which someone else can use if, in fact, they do own the material, and OCILLA provides us with a chance to remove it before being jailed. Does that sound reasonable? -Splashtalk 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhys Llwyd again...

Thanks for your responce - although i stand by my claim i'm willing to accept that the best option is for me to write a compleatly new article - it's too much fuss to go after the Banner of Truth - i actully know Geoff Thomas the author and next time i see him i will confront him on the matter!

Regarding your comment about the importance of Gareth Davies. Internationally he is not know but within Wales he was a major figure in Christianity by the end of the 20th century. He was the leader of the Evengelical Movement of Wales for many years. For academic articles about him see...

Y Cylchgrawn Efengylaidd (May 2005 i think) Y Goleuad (April 2005 i think) ...all in Welsh i'm afraid.

And ironiclly the fact that it is on the Banner of Truth website at all (despite the contrevercy) is evident of his importancy in Welsh Christianity.

Impostor / sockpuppet

Someone using a derivative of your username here & posting trolling edits. Just FYI - Ali-oops✍ 00:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it happened last week, and the account has been blocked and shut down. --Doc (?) 00:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Got that! --Doc (?) 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

vandal

User:195.188.250.67 has done some pretty brutal vandalism at Jesus; just one to watch I think. KHM03 11:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet now. If he does that again, it merits an instant block. But I'll put Jesus back on my watchlist (that sound like a bad hymn title!) - I took the article off a few months ago in disgust at the contents. --Doc (?) 11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And I don't blame you for avoiding the Jesus article...I mainly watch it so as to deal with vandalism and outright heresy and lies. KHM03 14:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

nobody

Excuse my ignorance, butis RfD where i send this? And what do I actually tag, I can't seem to find the page. --Doc (?) 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You tag template:nobody (clicking that link will redirect you, but right under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" it'll say "(Redirected from wherever)". If you click the wherever in that you'll end up on the redirect page. Add the {{Rfd}} tag and follow the listing instructions on WP:RfD. Let me know if I haven't made everything clear. --fvw* 13:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. And I will be careful with nn-bios. DES (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Clemson

Would you mind protecting Clemson University, there's been a faily persistent vandal lately. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been done already. --Doc (?) 07:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy proposal

Hi, I saw your comments here, and thought you might be interested in helping me develop the consensus to help introduce it here. thanks - Martin 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians

You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

I want to thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. First time I ever got my user page vandalised and probaly not the last. Now I know how it feels :( Thanks again --JAranda | yeah 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wear it as a vandal-slayer's badge of honour. --Doc (?) 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


CoC

Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

EKBK

Thanks for the heads-up, Doc. I can hardly bear to look. ;-( SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mission San Jose High School

This page have been met with HEAVY vandalism lately including users who was using this page as a chat room. Whould u mind if u can have this page Mission San Jose High School protected for a while. Thanks --JAranda | yeah 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Protection is always for short periods, or last resorts, this seems to have been quiet for a while, so I'll put it on my watchlist, and protect if it flares up again. Annoying yes, but not really a huge problem. --Doc (?) 15:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Esker Melchior Deletion

Can you explain why you speed-deleted this page? You cite 'attack' as the reason, but who is it an attack on? Esker Melchior is a genuine (and very funny) example of a Yahoo Troll. I suppose, for an overworked Wiki admin, the article's example of an Esker rant with reference to LIE-NUX COMMIES would trigger some sort of recognition reflex with the example of a personal attack on the Speedy deletion page, since they're both written in Leet speak.

But read the article again. It's not an attack in the Speed-deletion sense.

If you're seriously suggesting that the article is an attack on Esker by mentioning his poor spelling and grammar then you've completely missed the point of Esker. The bad spelling and grammar is intentional.

If you think that the diatribe against LIE-NUX COMMIES or whatever (I forget which Esker gem was put on this page) was just some sly way of inserting an attack on them on Wikipedia, then again, you've missed the point of Esker. Esker is actually making his own inimitable mockery of the arguments of the anti-Linux crowd.

If you think the article was just a way of smuggling an attack on SCO by quoting a full example of a satirical post (the closest to the truth), then you have to remember that's all Esker does - it's hard to talk about him without mentioning the fact that he's a satirical jibe at the actions of The SCO Group and it's dwindling band of supporters. Anyways, that's surely a matter for some sort of NPOV tribunal, not a speed-delete.

I don't see how this article fits into the 'attack' category. If you don't like the article, then 'non-notability' might be a better bet for a non-speedy delete, though there has been the odd instance of Esker getting notification by the mainstream press these days, so you may have a fight on your hands....

Aim Here


OK, perhaps I was hasty in speedying it. I have restored it and listed it on afd - here. That will ensure a proper debate on its notability. I suggest you give your arguements there. --Doc (?) 10:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Farsi vandal

Thanks, at least that means I can go and get some lunch! I don't know if it's vandalism or ignorance either, although I have just posted a {{test3}} to 213.176.78.9 (talk • contribs) as s/he removed a {{notenglish}} tag. Physchim62 11:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Q1werty

I only have one question. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? --GraemeL (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem Doc. I was just trying to work out if you had any more of an idea of what he/she was up to than I did. --GraemeL (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I'm going to ignore him/her or block, it's up to Qwe1rtt. --Doc (?) 16:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
And you're blocked. Goodnight --Doc (?) 20:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
He who laughs last... --GraemeL (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Laughs for at least the next 48 hours! --Doc (?) 20:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Big woop--Q1werty was here 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Bush "vandalism"

I didn't notice that it was a different IP, but the content of the edit was virtually identical to another edit to the article which had been repeatedly reverted. For that reason, I lumped it as vandalism. That said, immediately after submitting it, I wished that I hadn't said it. --GugilyMugily 22:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sergei Bulgakov

The staff I based the article on is the article on Sergei Bulgakov in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Булгаков, Сергей Николаевич), you could realized that it had Wiki markup. Obviously if GPDL. abakharev 12:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It would still be better if you didn't post the material until after you have translated it. Alternatively, create a temporary article for working on e.g. Sergei Bulgakov/temp - working in the main article space is not desirable. --Doc (?) 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-vandalism?

This may be a silly question, but why the self-vandalism and reversion? --RoySmith 21:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it gets my vandal score up on the league table :) - no seriously, I was testing the bot on the IRC vandal channel to see if it noticed, but its broke. --Doc (?) 22:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I fell for that one too; It doesn't report vandalism of your own user page. Feel free to vandalise mine (everyone else does) --fvw* 22:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh :(, no point, the bot's broke.

Speedy deletions

Thank you for looking into the situation and your offer to be of more assistance. There might be more problems in the next few minutes, so could you please continue to monitor what's going on with the dispute over the deletion of totalitarian dictators? 172 | Talk 11:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Now on my watchlist - although I've no clue as to what's going on --Doc (?) 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechPhile

Doc,
(Disclaimer: All respect, just wanting a chat, etc. etc.) So... In the nicest possible way, how is this not a consensus to delete? Even if it's simply a vote, and even if we presume that Treelovinhippie's ranting counts as a "keep" vote, it's a clear enough.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to be invited to review my decisions - and not too proud to reverse them if I've miscounted. But, on this occassion I make 5D to 4K (even discounting the newbies/socks). I think you have misread User:DS1953's vote, it's a 'keep'. --Doc (?) 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: CommandN

I'm not sure you can say "the result of the debate was DELETE" when the entire debate centred around flawed criteria, and when my point was never addressed. See the "debate". Here is my comment again:

Keep - First of all, you guys seem unusually bent on deleting this page. Secondly, Google is a suitable test if you use it properly. If you've ever taken Statistics, you'll learn that survey results can easily be biased by the wording of the question. Your criteria include the term "vidcast", which doesn't appear anywhere on the CommandN wiki, nor anywhere on commandn.tv, the official website. Biased, don't you think? If a simple search for "CommandN" doesn't satisfy you because the popularity of commandn.net (an artist group in Tokyo) is interfering with results, all you need to do is include conventional terms--"commandn podcast OR vidcast OR videoblogging" returns 53,400 hits. If you're *still* not convinced, a simple paging through the results to view contexts should help. It has only 2 Google Groups hits, but if you know anything about the unquestionably popular podcast This Week In Tech (or TWiT), that podcast gets only 44 hits, with the benefit of a dozen former US television personalities.

It looks to me like you're forcing someone to needlessly re-write this article in the future... --Iminaufo 01:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_13Oct05_d337.html"