User talk:Doc glasgow/1Oct05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RfA; I was very surprised by the amount of support I received. Even though you say you have no worries with me, please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning how to use the new buttons. Thanks again, -Splash 14:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No problems, I may even come to you when I need you to use those powerful tools in my aid. --Doc (?) 23:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Biomas

Biomass to liquid- why do you have removed the links in the text - this was the proper type of citing literature used in the text... --Gerfriedc 18:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if the links are in support of an actual citation, or referencing an argument in the text. But as far as I could see, these were general links on the topic (they were not 'used in the text') - and thus belong under either 'external links' or 'sources' at the end of the article. --Doc (?) 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting all that vandalism to my user talk page. I appreciate it! --Canderson7 01:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fat

I thought that the song Fat belonged in the article Fat, because it seems like an appropriate place.66.115.235.199 23:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

More Christian mythology

There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Doc, I've never been anything but impressed with your contributions to the Wiki. You're one of the most level-headed and even-handed folks on VfD, you do great work on RC patrol and you have an absurd number of edits for someone who's only been around since April. If you're willing, I'd like to nominate you for adminship. Go ahead and reply right here if you accept. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of those 'absurd number of edits' are, in fact, quite minor, and I'm probably going to have a little less time from now than I've had in the past. However, there's little doubt that whatever time I have could be more effectively spent if I didn't have to manually roll-back vandalism, and tab nonsense for others to delete. So, yes, if you are willing, I'll accept. --Doc (?) 18:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Good news, Doc. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Your nomination is up, Doc. Please accept it when the opportunity arises. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Re:A Time to Dance: The Life and Work of Norma Canner

  • Gentle rebuke here. Did you realise that you tagged this for afd - less than 60 seconds after creation. Perhaps the article's creator was intending to fill out his blank page (we will never know). But less than 60 seconds later an afd tag was posted - and eight minutes later a speedy. Ten mins later it's gone! If the anon intended writing an article, you probably scared them off. Can I gently suggest that those doing NP patrol work from lower down the list, and give folks a chance? Don't bite the newbies. --Doc (?) 21:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't biting the newbies...in fact I help new users here all the time. I would have agreed with you completely about a month ago during a debate on a (now deleted) article called "Cirussism" but Ben-w did a similar act and deleted the article. I disagreed with him, as you are disagreeing with me now...but people still cleared off the article after I plead that it should stay put. I guess it may be popular policy to clear off articles if they seem without warrant...I fought against it and lost, so I decided if you can't beat them join them. I am sorry that you had gotten upset about this, but it seemed clear to me that the article wasn't notable...especially since the author in question had only typed "----" instead of something that can even be argued as notable. Thanks for your concern, but please don't tell me I am biting the newbies because that is far from the line of work I am trying to do here. Image:WikiLove.png : ) Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Please also note that if a speedy tag was added, and then a deletion, two other editors also side with me - that the article wasn't notable on Wikipedia. I sincerely thank you and regard you for your concern for new users. I can already tell that you are a kind user devoted to helping people, but I hope you don't think the opposite about me. Molotov (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
No, not really upset over this, chances are the article would have been a nothing anyway - I am not defending the article. And I didn't think you were being deliberately unfriendly, just a little hasty. But, if as you say this is policy - then I guess my gripe would be with policy and not with you. We sometimes waste hours scrutinising some terrible article on afd, that would be no loss if it had been shot on sight, or we leave awful stubs for months in the vain hope they'll grow, so I think we should perhaps give new articles half an hour. Sorry if I over-reacted. --Doc (?) 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, you didn't overeact. I really like your patience with these new users. As a matter of fact have a barnstar:

Image:Barnstar.png

Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina.com

Hey, Doc. Now that I think about, I do wonder which was the more compassionate route (this is possibly an interesting application of IAR). But yes, I'll keep the discussion on my watchlist. And I'd support a new CSD, A8: "on compassionate grounds". Pre-emptive congrats on your RfA, by the way; perhaps once you're an admin, I'll be able to clean out the CSD cat faster than it fills up! -Splashtalk 23:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


McCune28

Rolf Pfeifer page is updated

Admin

It's my pleasure to inform you that, consensus having been reached, you are now an administrator :). May I suggest that you take a few minutes at your convenience to read the How-to guide and look over some of the documents on the reading list? Please be careful with your new rights, in particular image deletion and history merges, which are irreversible. That said, I'm sure you'll do wonderfully :). Pakaran 19:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to use this wisely, and stay away from irreversable things, at least for a while. --Doc (?) 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not "stay away from" as much as "be careful with." If, for example, you block the wrong user, that's not good, but any other sysop can unblock them with a couple mouse clicks. There was some concern this weekend where images were deleted under the new WP:CSD which some folks feel are under valid fair use claims, and now it's difficult to get the images back if they indeed should be on the wiki. Pakaran 19:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yay, Doc. Congratulations. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Congrats! Now, get to mopping! -- Essjay · Talk 23:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Do good things! KHM03 00:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Do what your position allows you to do

If your not going to put the Howard Stern page under vprotect, then you mine as well stop reverting, because all of your reversions are making you look like a joke of a admin, consdiering that you have the ability to stop this. --Boothy443 | comhrá 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - new and still learning - I've just blocked the vandal (hope I've got that right) --Doc (?) 23:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Doc glasgow/1Oct05/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Renegadeviking

No problem! Thanks for moving it. I hope my message has cleared some stuff up for him. I'm fairly new myself and know how confusing Wikipedia can be at times :-) --JoanneB 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we were all new once, but it looks like you're learing fast. You are certainly a very competent vandal-slayer. --Doc (?) 08:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User 216.124.225.130

Thanks for blocking that clown - 24 hours won't be enough though. He's got a pattern the last few days which I'm sure you noticed. When algebra class lets out, he comes here :) -EDM 17:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Internet Celebrities

I would have put speedy tags on the two "internet celebrities" if I realized that they did meet the criteria. Especially with the reference to phallic dimensions. Thanks. -WCFrancis 00:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of interpretating the critieria. But if we allow 'I'm a celebrity' as an assertion of notability on an otherwise non-notable (and junk) biography, then we're open to vandals simply putting in 'a notable schoolboy' to preserve their article. Nothing other than the word 'celebrity' suggested notability, and that was not enough for me. Thanks. --Doc (?) 08:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page

I guess the header really explains it all. Very much appreciated. Lord Bob 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, Doc

Thanks for the kind words. It's a nice change to see something other than "U HIIPPICRIT Y U DELEET ME?" on my talk page. Much appreciated. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

It's not that our disagreements are forgotten (though most of them probably are — I don't remember), but that my disagreeing with you has no bearing on my opinion of your general worth as an editor and admin. (Of course, voting for someone's adminship could be seen as a variant of "may you live in interesting times"...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they certainly would be less interesting if we all agreed! But, since we can agree on that, then.... --Doc (?) 19:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

I have had some dealings with Scott. Although he has made some strange edits, I dont believe he was being malicious and he really was trying to contribute in his own way. Assume good faith!. Would you please reconsider your decision? THank you for your time!--Light current 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he was being malicious either. I think disputes with other users simply got on top of him. But his parting act of deletions was damaging. He has indicated on his user page and in an e-mail he sent me that he doesn't intend to return (that's a pity - he's a good editor). If he indicates otherwise, I (or another admin) will be happy to unblock him immediately (he knows that). He is blocked as a precaution against futher bad-tempered deletions, not as a punishment of any type. Offer him support on his user page, if you can persuade him to return to sensible editing, let me know and I'll certainly unblock. --Doc (?) 21:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I ran right into this by accident. Portions of Scott's contributions had come under heavy editing recently (issues like nonstandard use of HTML, links to not-very-relevant fannish pages at his own website, and uncertain copyright status of images). It's a difficult situation. I guess he thinks he's being persecuted; I think he has produced good material but doesn't fully 'get' what constitutes encyclopedic. Tearlach 14:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it certainly was not fun being in that box! LOL Listen up, Here's what really triggered me, and Doc knows...on his EMAILS communication, while I was in the "box"; POTW on the Steve Winwood, Aaron Neville and Blind Faith pages. Watch what happens on these pages, if I'm not being stalked.

  • Tearlach: I tried to work with him on the multimedia, best to leave alone I guess for now.....
  • Lightcurrent: Thanks for your support and keep up your good work on the electrical stuff. Got some excellent pics in the camera awaiting for you, Hope you like them in the near future. Love the kicker magnet addition, only if I had the time...Have a twelve year old son and three dogs and two cats, Plus a wife with honey do's...
  • Doc, Keep an eye on those pages please and I don't know what keeps you going but don't go off the deep end like I did. Sorry for any problems I uncreated...and thanks for fixing my userpage back. You are the man!

Regards, Scott 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note Scott's edits, of the last hour or two. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doc, Here's the evidence of previous problems with Andy (Alias PIGSONTHEWING):

POTW

Mr Andy- Alias Pigsonthewings; It is evident you've had more problems in the past than I'll ever have and you know it. You really want to be sneaky and staulk on wikipedia rather than contribute. People have tried to talk to you in the past and you seem to want to show a power thing or something. Not sure what your real problem is with good editors. If you wish I will post the evidence here now as I made a good effort to comprimise with you as others have:

1)Your user page
2)Scroll to bottom

3)POTW user page-this one is a real shame

4)POTW

5)==Mig/POTW==

6)You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
7)[See Ok, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are following my every move on wikipedia and they are tracing my IP addresses. No different Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Boulevard]
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=4 See Pigsonthewing Hi Nick, I've been having the same problems as you I think. I've decided to move away from the wikipedia page but I still think something needs to be done about Andy Mabbett. I hope you'll agree that the problem is not what Pigsonthewing does for the wikipedia, which is of reasonable quality, but the following:

Stalking. He will target work by specific users instead of finding new articles to work on. this happened to me, and I think has also happened to you. Obsessive. Once he has made an edit he will watch the page, and revert any changes made. He gets involved in revision wars all the time. Once he has made his mind up nobody else gets a lookin. Rude. His comments in the revision section are very snide. After you have reseached something to have it described as irrelavant hurts. Destructive. He removes from the wikipedia much more than he puts in. I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however he should realise he is interacting with real people and we all do it as a kind of therapy, as a kind of entertainment- we do it because we enjoy it! His work is not of low quality- rather his behavior is deliberatly anti-social- he obviously enjoys putting people's noses out of joint. If you want someone to join in a test case for this I would be willing to contribute. I don't think he should be banned, but certainly I think his brand of abusive, bullying behaviour should be frowned upon by wikipedia as strongly as 'peacock terms' or 'copy violations'. Leonig Mig 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just shameful! Letting things go Nick: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Andy, Brumberger, or Ray may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=7 A negative response attempting to create a more sense of aggrevation: Ok, no probs. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) That lasted about 22 hours - and one edit. [1]. Andy Mabbett 19:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Get over it Andy, concentrate on other things and your/our time here will be much more rewarding. Nick Boulevard 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

I also think he might have multiple alias's. Scott 21:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 10)*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G-Man/POTW_RFC Previous message on user sight/ Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) makes frequent and aggressive use of repeated reversion and engages in edit wars, sometimes reverting unvandalised user pages. Yep! These are often part of continuing personal conflicts with other (albeit not blameless) individual editors. These reversions are often not explained (simply "rv") or explained with apparent hostility: pointed, snide or dismissive remarks. Discussion of these reversions is often frustrating and fruitless as his answers are most frequently no longer than one line. The repeated reversion of articles combined with the hostile summaries leads to ill-feeling, which spreads to talk pages, where the same pattern of aggressive reversion is combined with aggressive commentary, which hinders discussion. This combination of reversion and aggression on user pages is particularly inflammatory; it largely arises when Pigsonthewing dissagrees with a comment about him or his behaviour. Several editors believe that some of these reversions arise from Pigsonthewing's systematic stalking of all their edits and that this stalking is a form of harassment]

Shelby Yoshida

Thank you for notifying me -- I've listed it at AFD. Quicksandish 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on Adminship

Congratulations! Missed the vote due to failure to watch RfA, but you certainly appear to me an ideal admin: so much to do....dave souza 07:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I second that - Congrats! I doubt you'll screw up anytime soon. :P Acetic'Acid 03:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on your pages

Try to see it as a badge of honor when someone attacks your page. Joyous (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sienna F.C.

Am I missing something, then? All I can make sense of is "Sienna F.C. is a football club" - the rest is gibberish, and none of it qualifies as context. I suppose it could be about A.C. Siena, but that's stretching it, and the original creator seems to have a habit of creating useless articles like this one. In any case, I've AFD'd it now, so the clock is ticking :) sjorford #£@%&$?! 17:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, forget that, I've turned it into a redirect to avoid clogging AFD. <whine> But still, don't you think it's A Bad Thing for Wikipedia to be clogged with crap like this? Not that I'm one for vague speedy deletion criteria, but I really do think this is just asking to be speedied. </whine> sjorford #£@%&$?! 17:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I could have speedied that, but I was working through dozens of articles that were marked as speedied for being 'adverts' or 'no context' which were no where near WP:CSD, and I was getting a little frustrated. So sorry if I was a bit legalistic with your tab. --Doc (?) 19:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, that's okay - I seriously need another WikiVacation, I think, I'm getting far to stressed about little things. But you know how it goes - I see something nasty, so I slap a {d} tag on it - I do realise that when an actual administrator has to actually press "delete", they might have higher standards :) So don't worry about it. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Common sense deletion

You may be interested in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Common sense speedy. To me it seems like an unfortunate number of editors are more interested in exactly following rules than they are in making an encyclopedia. I for one think those priorities should be reversed. Friday (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: CSD

Great work tagging speedies Rob, but please not that 'adversing' is not a WP:CSD (as much as it shjould be) --Doc (?) 22:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right it bloody well ought to be. Couldn't we put it through under "only consists of attempts to relate to subject" though? Regardless, it's gumph that no-one will crucify us for deleting quietly. Rob Church Talk 22:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I re-read it, and on refelection it looked like patent nonsense to me. --Doc (?) 22:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Satpersian

I think we've had a three way edit conflic dealing with this. But no harm done! Cheers --Doc (?) 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

We did? I must have been on the best end, I didn't notice any of it. But it was nice to see we agree with eachother's judgements (I didn't notice you were doing the same until I saw the block log). Happy editing! --fvw* 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: User :Satpersian

Thanks, though you might have me confused with someone else, the only "action" I took was listing on him Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, looking at his talkpage it looks like you and two other admins pounced on him just about simultaniously as he got one final warning and two block messages just a few minutes apart. You might want to talk to Changlc (aka Loren) and Fvw about the "collision" instead. Anyway thanks for dealing with him. --Sherool 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy Breckman vandalism

You vprotected it with one bit of vandalism still in place. The vandals inserted a comment in the last sentence calling him an 'octoroon'. He is not. Please remove. Uucp 23:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hey, there! I apologize for the confusion and my misunderstanding. I had read {{db|promoting}} as an example a few months ago and obviously assumed "promoting" would be a CSD—and have used it a couple of times on RC patrol. As you have pointed out and in review of WP:CSD, I see that it is not. Please chalk this up as a newbie error. Now, if I could just find where I read the {{db|promoting}} example :-). Thanks for the insight!! Have a great week. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 09:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the medal and the kind words, very much appreciated! Oh and thanks for blocking that vandal the other day, I only discovered that WP:AIV page a few days ago and it's quite helpful for non-admin vandal fighters! --JoanneB 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Doc

Can I nominate someone for admin? Where do I go, if so? Thanks, Scott 15:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You can do on WP:RfA. But do get their permission first. --Doc (?) 15:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. again, been behaving and keeping my cool. Scott 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User 196.42.61.61

User 196.42.61.61[1] has reposted the Juan Fuentes Delgado article that you deleted earlier today. Looks like it isn't the only problem article as s/he has also created Momentos de Amor. I would mark these as delete again, but I figured you'd want to monitor the user. What are the proper steps I would take with these since s/he is obviously a repeat offender? Your guidance is appreciated. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, both these pages have been listed on articles for translation - Juan Fuentes Delgado had already been translated, but it is possible it may have improved. We'll need to see what the translators say, if they are to be deleted, I can protect against recreation. And I have asked the IP to contribute in English, since (s)he seems able to do this. I son't think there is any more to do right now. --Doc (?) 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I wanted to see how an experienced editor would have handled this situation as I haven't run across this before. Have a great weekend!! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Joey Theodore Miller

Did you intend to remove the redirect on Joey Theodore Miller? It's still there. Friday (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ta, now gone. --Doc (?) 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:67.86.15.248

Thanks for reverting his vandalism on my user page, it wasn't nearly as creative as his first attempt. Also, thanks for blocking him, he obviously doesn't like the Single Transferable Vote. Ben D. 22:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Doc (?) 22:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Bibby

It looks like Bibby got bored...The best rangeblock I could do is 213.106.96.0/24, which would block everything from 213.106.96.0 to 213.106.96.255, 256 addresses total, and I think that's excessive for the moment. (I can't get the online calculator to work and I don't understand the instructions on Meta.) If he comes back, we'll do it. -- Essjay · Talk 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, your probably right. Although I'm sure he'll be back - we have met before. --Doc (?) 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_1Oct05_ff4e.html"