User talk:Doc glasgow/28Oct05
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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
Catholic Encyclopedia
I've noticed you have worked on an article that is covered by the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia. While a religious resource, there is a great deal of impartial information about historical events, persons and ideas that are covered by the CE. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate incorporation of relevant information from the CE into wikipedia. I would appreciate any help you can offer in the project. Reflex Reaction 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Dat Le
Ha! You delete conflicted me, which took away all my fun. (PS, you can go edit the AfD with your reason or whatever, if you like). -Splashtalk 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Uncontested deletions
Hi there! I notice discussion has kind of died down at that page. How about we hold a test run for a couple of weeks and advertise it widely, just to prove that it would work? Radiant_>|< 10:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me, but wouldn't it need some kind of consensus to do that? - And we'd need to fine-tune the rules. How many days? With a bot, or with date categories? There would also be quite a lot of template work to do. To be honust, while the response on he page has been encouraging, I've been disappointed that we havn't had more eyes on this - either +ve or -ve. I've been trying to think of new ways of publicising the discussion, but to no avail. Any ideas on that? As I say, I'd be delighted with a test run - but perhaps we need to write a more concise set of instructions first. --Doc (?) 11:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc
 |
Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is very much appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC) |
block
Earlier today you blocked User:Flash Virus on the grounds of inappropriate username. That username was started by User:71.192.228.85, on my advice--I've been showing him (I assume it's a him) the ropes. His contributions have been well-intentioned, and he's used the name elsewhere and would like to use it here. I'm wondering if you could either unblock it and see if others find it offensive, or discuss it with him at User talk:71.192.228.85. I'd appreciate it; thanks. Chick Bowen 01:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm wikibreaking for th moment - and I'll be away for a week. I can't deal with this now, but I've posted it to WP:ANI for another admin to consider. --Doc (?) 09:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Wolters: deleted article
Hi Doc Glasgow - I noticed that an article I started on Al Wolters has been deleted. Is it possible to contest the decison? Or is this too late? I've been away from Wiki for awhile and have only just noticed this. Cheers, SteveBish 10:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hm, actually, I can't see any reason why your article deserved to be deleted - I'd have voted to retain it. But, it was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:AFD (you will find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters). It could only be un-deleted if the case was argued successfully at WP:VFU 'votes for undeletion', but I think you might have some problems. The article has been validly and unanimously deleted under the process - so you would need to be able to show some evidence of 'notability' missed by those who voted delete. I think your chances are slim, but you can try. The other option would be to place some of the information in a different article - ironicaly articles on books are less liable to being deleted than those on authors. Try creating a valid article on one of his books - and then give some basic information about the author. (If it is of any help, I can retrieve your original article and post it on your userpage - but you'd have to promise not to recreate the article without a VFU success. I'll be away for a week from tonight, so if you want this done after that, approach another admin and point them to this discussion here.) Hope that helps. Let me know what you decide to do --Doc (?) 12:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hrm, that's a tricky one. I already voted kd on the VfU, before I got your message. I think the problem that deleted it was probably the slightly fluffy stuff that rather overpowered the grit of the article. Given what you say, perhaps a new AfD is in order in this case. The author will need to dig in at VfU with some demonstration of what might have been overlooked or overly-deletionistically minimized. There's already a request for temp-undeletion that I'm slightly wary of granting for an AfD, but perhaps ought to in this case. I'll drop the author a note, and point him towards your reply here, too. -Splashtalk 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Use your discretion
Doc, there's nothing which says you have to delete an article even if the votes are unanimous. Hang on, lets' adjust the emphasis: there's nothing which says you have to delete an article even if the votes are unanimous. If you think the result is codswallop, leave it be and let some other sucker take the heat. Either someone else will do it, or no-one will: sufficient numbers of sub-standard deletion discussions which no admin will touch might actually bring some much-needed attention to the cesspool that is WP:AFD. Don't let them grind you down! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right - I was just mass processing Afd's and had my eye on process not content. In hindsight, I should have added a 'stong keep' and left it at that. --Doc (?) 17:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Celestianpower is an admin
Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! I also hope to work with you on something soon - I've heard a lot about you! --Celestianpower hablamé 12:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations - and I hope it was all good --Doc (?) 12:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
FSF RFA
Thanks for your support. freestylefrappe 15:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Seisser
Hans von Seisser has been recreated but is now a legitimate bio-(sub)stub on a person somewhat notable for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch. Please modify your comment on the AfD accordingly - I just removed a spurious speedy-tag from the page. Uppland 08:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.74.199.42 is back
RFC
Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've endorsed some comments on the RfC, but these things seldom seem fruitful. I'd generally rather talk about issues than personalities. And whilst I was not really satisfied with Tony's replies to my criticisms, he's never been less than civil towards me personally. --Doc (?) 00:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
You should change your name to...
...Doc Holliday! You beat me to the draw in blocking User:86.129.194.64. Well done! :) Owen× ☎ 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Block
Nice job on 220.246.136.218
Prodego talk 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Abusive admin!
For the early closing of school AfD debates that would normally lead to long, contentious arguments, doomed to end with no consensus. --GraemeL (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's an abuse of admin powers to bypass AfD. If school AfDs aren't productive, work to change policy, not make your own. --A D Monroe III 18:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstood my award. I was agreeing with his actions. --GraemeL (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, don't know whether to be flattered or insulted. But tell me, do I get to join Tony's gang now? :) --Doc (?) 19:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you did that, I should probably say I don't think it should be done. There's just a plain ordinary no consensus on school (non-)deletion, and speedy-closing the debates is pretty clearly leaning one way rather than the other. I can see why you did it, but I'm not sure it's a great thing to do. This isn't a love-of-process thing, it's just that people frequently cite "keep per policy" or "delete per policy" and have to poked about it. If an admin closes school debates early (as effective keeps), this allows a precedent for one side to point to rather than the other. -Splashtalk 22:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure I'm understanding you Splash. I closed them as 'no-consensus' - which is (as has been demonstrated too many times) what the position is on schools. There is no point in a debate as 1) the outcome is obvious - and so why is the nominator asking a question when he knows the community's answer. 2) there will not be a debate anyway, just stupid, futile and bad-tempered trench warfare. I don't think I can be accused of favouring any side, as I've never voted on schools (well I think I did once, and that was an exceptional case). In any case, I wasn't using any admin power - what I did could be (and was) reversed by any editor. --Doc (?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't intend to accuse you of favouring one side: just that the effect of your actions does. Closing as a no-consensus means the article is kept and that surely can't please the school-deletionists. A bit like speedy-deleting them a-la Neutrality didn't exactly please the school-inclusionists (although that was a blatantly partisan act). I fear that if speedy-closes were effected often there will eventually be a situation where schools cannot be nominated, like GNAA can't be. When that happens, the school-inclusionists will have managed to turn a no consensus keep into a de facto outright keep-with-immunity. If there is no consensus, we have to admit the continuing discussion. I don't usually participate in school debates either; I think I said to delete a few a keep a few. Anyway, since the closures were reversed, I'm being a little academic I suppose. -Splashtalk 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, as policy stands, no-consensus is a defacto keep. I really don't understand why folk don't just go ahead and merge the stubs - much better option. I'm very happy for continued discussion - discussion is good. But, you can't tell me that the current slug-fest is a discussion? It's a very childish brawl - and folks can't seem to help themselves. Discussion should involve listening and be aimed at compromise - fat chance. The net effect is to poision the atmosphere and IMO the air is toxic enough at the moment anyway. Doc (?) 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, Doc, thanks for the award. I hope you don't think I was accusing you of admin abuse (although such an accusation is one that would oftentimes be treasured, anyway) — I was theorising more than critcising. No, I won't tell you that the current....schools interactions....are a discussion; they are something closer to trench(ant) warfare. Not that I have a solution. Although I am sometimes tempted to take a week out and merge all the school articles into districts/states/etc just to see how seriously people on both sides mean what they say, when they say keep or delete rather than the probably grumblingly-acceptable merge they should usually be saying. -Splashtalk 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
CBW RfA
A quick word of thanks for voting on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
AfD
I managed to click the edit links on 3 AfDs, click my close links then save but as I was doing so, you were too and you got in there first. I had to revert myself 3 times! I thought it was absolutely hillarious! --Celestianpower háblame 21:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions to the integrity of China. PS, you don't understand any Doric, or choose not to put it on your language-template? --Dpr 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Lock
Good call on the lock to Prussian Blue (American duo). There is apparently a concerted effort on their forums to revert to the version they want up, so be on the lookout when the lock is taken off. .. and according to their forums, I'm the host of Wikipedia, a leftist, and a member of the Jewish Media... who knew?--Isotope23 02:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
the wub's RfA
Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Acts 29
Hi there, the entry on the Ray Capt book has grown a little. Maybe you have some idea how to put the crackpottery into some context. Pilatus 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd's RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
AfD - when does this stop being discussed?
You nominated my Myma Seldon article as AfD, and the boilerplate text says: You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. When will the article stop being discussed - I don't undertand this. Gary Kirk 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion will go on for 5 days or more - if there is 70% in favour of deleting it will be deleted - if no it will be kept. When the debate is 'closed and concluded' by an adminiostrator, the tag will be removed from the article, not before. I hope that helps. --Doc (?) 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- yes that helps thank you : Gary Kirk 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
E-cake
FireFox 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yikes!
Man, thanks for explaining. I am in the middle of a dozen other things and just acted too qucikly. If you haven't fixed it, I will. I am really sorry about the mix-up and glad you contacted me, Steve
Blocked Submission.
I recieved a note saying my article was blocked because it came from a web-site, but i am the author and editor of the piece. Is there some way to reverse this decision, or can I re-submit in another way?
thanks very much. The piece is "What is a Freemason" by user masonictraveler
- Sorry to butt in, but I replied on User talk:Masonictraveler with another concern about this content. Thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention in case people want to keep the discussion in one spot. Friday (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Friday, you edit conflicted me on his talk page - but I was saying the same thing (although I do have to say a lot less succinctly). Cheers. --Doc (?) 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks - you made me smile back! Trollderella 23:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Moving Football pages
I'm really sorry, on the Italian wiki I always did that way and nobody told me it was wrong. :( CapPixel 10:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem, we all live and learn. --Doc (?) 10:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Care to explain your rv on Jesus?
You reverted, yet I can't see anywhere on Talk:Jesus that you explained the revert. Slrubenstein, however, has made a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
My revert was in error - I edit-confliced with SIr. Sorry. --Doc (?) 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
