User talk:Doc glasgow//16Jan06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Doc glasgow | User talk:Doc glasgow/
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


Sorry to see you leave, you're one of the best contributors around here. But I understand and mostly agree. Far too much time is wasted on vandalism, crackpottery and unverifiable garbage. u p p l a n d 11:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a break and come back...let me know if theres anything I can do...email if you prefer--MONGO 11:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A sledgeheammer of bad news. One way or another, this darkness has to give. El_C 12:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What El_C said. More bad news. I'm really sorry to see you go. Guettarda 15:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Man, just take a break, don't worry, we'll keep things running here. Come back soon... :( Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
More tragedy. Please come back. I know it seems bad, and I know that far too much time is wasted on idiots. But if we give up, then they win. That sounds cliche, yes, but it's true. We'll keep the Wiki warm while you take a break. 'Please' don't stay away forever.--Sean|Black 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. you can always e-mail me if you want to talk.

Contents

{Template:User AmE-0

RE: The "AmE-0" on your page, you may be interested in adding Template:User AmE-0 or Category:User_AmE-0 to your user page, just letting you know about their existence in case you're interested. --Chaosfeary 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Peace

Hope you find you way back...you'll be missed. Merry Christmas. KHM03 13:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Same here, I know you'll read this sooner or later ;-) Merry Christmas! --JoanneB 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the votes of confidence. I've just looked at some articles I put time into - and they have degenerated. So in frustration I've started fixing a few things. But I'm keeping my activity very low for now - and I'm doing no more RCP. I may drift back - or I may drift away for good, who knows? --Doc ask? 12:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see you editing again, no matter how lightly. The entropy of Wikipedia rises quickly, huh? Enjoy Christmas. -Splashtalk 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Critical Review AfD

That's what I thought it looked like. Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 19:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Don't let the place bum you out again...find an area you like and edit there and deal with the areas that you find stressful only when and if you want to. Let me know if there's anything you need.--MONGO 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

GH avisualagency™

Thanks Doc for closing this - Merry Xmas Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll second that on both counts! Also, if you notice anything I could have done better in managing the AfD, please let me know. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you

Well, welcome back! You better you stay! Seriously, if you ever have any problems you need help dealing with, I'm here for you. I hope you never feel like you have to leave again. And happy holidays! :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Outside view by Doc

From this posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fred Bauder Affair you have demonstrated a few things including:

  1. that you either are unable to comprehend the issue or that it is a deliberate attempt to distort an extremely important issue;
  2. that you belittle other Wikipedian opinions, and do so despite the damage such petty, negative attitudes caused in the edits to the John Seigenthaler and Alan Dershowitz articles.

A lack of respect for others by Wikipedians certainly sends a clear message to newcomers or outsiders, including the media. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1. You are correct, the issue is incomprehensible to me (as, indeed, it seems to be to most resonable people). I view it not only unimportant, but irrelevant to the functioning of Wikipedia.
2. Eh? 'Petty negative attitudes'? That seems to me exactly what the RfC exhibits - draging up things from someone's past to attack their contribution to wikipedia. (And, btw, I have never edited either of the articles you mention).

Merry Christmas. --Doc ask? 20:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Merry Christmas. --Nlu (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! And Welcome back! El_C 05:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas

Psst...I'm not here. OK, so I'm not indef. leaving, given that people refuse to allow me to. I am, however, taking a break. Merry Christmas to you to. 86.133.53.111 22:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Protected your user page due to recurring vandalism and blanking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--Doc ask? 01:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

IP Bloicking

Hey Doc. You blocked my IP User:24.26.178.253 without judgment, and based on request of an anonymous user. Why don't you look on Moldova and decide by yourself who is a vandal. Me of the anonymous romanian nazi, who is trying to claim that I am a vandal. It would be nice of some of admins can take care of the Moldoiva page.

Thanks for reverting my userpage, Doc. --Anittas 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc, please take into account that it's against Wiki policy to use different names. This is exactly what Anittas is doing. Take a look on "so called" anonymous reverts on {[Moldova]] page under names User:Just a tag, User:67.174.94.94, User:203.186.238.211, etc.
Exactly. It called "Romanian nationalistic sentiments". Wiki is about facts, not about your nationalistic sentiments. 134.84.5.17 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Node, Just a Tag is not me, but it could have been. We seem to share the same sentiments. --Anittas 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, IP. I blocked you (at no-one's request and with plenty of judgement) for calling people Nazi in edit summaries and removing material from their user pages. You were warned. That's not acceptable in wikipedia, and if you continue your new IP will be blocked too. --Doc ask? 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I may even agree that you were right on blocking me. But you are doing nothing to reverse pro-nationalistic remarks of others like Anittas. On that you are wrong.
Huh, now I'm suddenly Anittas ? I'm from Moldova, as far as I know Anittas is from Romania. Thanks, doc. Happy Holidays. --Just a tag 21:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That anon IP is node ue (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Need to be blocked. --67.174.94.94 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

{We don't block people for thier contributions. If you disagree with this user - discuss it on the talkpage and seek an agreement on what is an WP:NPOV article. If that fails, wait and let other editors in that subject field express oppinions. I block vandals and those who abuse other users, not people arguing their case - I know nothing about Moldovia. --Doc ask? 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc, unblock the page please, this is exactly what Node_ue is seeking (he already managed to block Moldovan language), now he is trying to get this page blocked, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkGallagher#Protect_the_Republic_of_Moldova_page. --Just a tag 21:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not getting involved in the content. The page is protected as you were edit warring. Settle the dispute on the article talk page. If you can't agree - use WP:RfC and list the article for comment by other users. Once a consensus is reached - then change the page. --Doc ask? 22:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
But you did get involved by blocking the page :( Nothing can be settled with this user (believe me it has been tried before many times) so what do you propose ? The process of "trying to settle" with this user already produced around 2mb of talk pages just on the moldovan language talk page, and a lot of emails on wikipedia-l, resulting in a lot of editors just getting tired of warring with him and abandoning the page. Nothing can be settled, personally I even refuse to talk to him because he has proved to be unrational, a person who simply cannot discuss things. --Just a tag 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeap! unblock the page. Then block the vandal node ue (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Need to be blocked. This guy node ue is a real jerk. --67.174.94.94 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is consensus. Don't you see? Just block the f***g vandal. That's all your job. --67.174.94.94 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc, the recent conflict with Node started for more than 4 months ago. The first conflict with Node started for over a year ago. We have discussed all that can be discussed, but you can't reach a compromise with Node. --Anittas 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It soounds to me like you need to try WP:DR or perhaps better, list the issue as an 'article request for comment' on WP:RFC. Edit warring is bad. --Doc ask? 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal node ue (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) should be blocked for one year. In this way he will calm down. --67.174.94.94 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Plus he just proved that any page on wikipedia can be simply blocked, get an anonymizer program and you're done :( --Just a tag 22:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect the page ? (this way it should force him to use a real nickname and not anonymous ip's) --Just a tag 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh you poor, sorry people. Doc, I made a request to Mark Gallagher for the reasons outlined in his talk page. The only reason I even asked him was because I noticed he protected the Moldovan language page for the similar reason that as soon as someone even attempted edit the page, there were reverts. My attempts at trying to clean up the page were focused on clearing up the English grammar and by summarizing a section that had been copied entirely from the article Movement for the unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova. From what I have seen of wikipedia, such redundancy only clutters a page, so I cut it down and left a link similar as to how the History, Politics, Geography, etc. sections were summarized. After the constant reverts from my editing (after which I gave up and just notified Mark and made a request for page protection since it appeared that someone was just lurking and reverting any edits. Afterwards there followed an edit war between some of the users. Had there not been the following edit war I doubt any admin would have protected the page. Anyway, although Just a tag and some of the other IP users (67.174.94.94, etc) do not believe it, I am not Node_ue, I do not live in the United States (I already stated my general location on Mark's page) and I would like to apologize, Doc for having these users come onto your talk page with their near-paranoia over some other user in addition to their barely civil language (calling persons "real jerks" and "f****g vandal") followed by a barrage of whining for the Moldova page.- Anon

Oops, that link should have been the Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova- Anon

This is just that he wanted. To have the page blocked. Bonaparte talk 07:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair) 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it's just part time

It's wonderful to see you back! :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi Doc glasgow,

I just wanted to thank you for (fire) supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

It means a lot to get the support from a Wikipedia veteran such as yourself. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To err is human, and you are very very human. :)

I'm not vandalizing pages. If I'm making a mistake because I'm new to the site, I apologize. But perhaps you could explain mistakes to new users instead of just calling them vandals and threatening to block them. If you'd have taken the time to read the discussion page on the article I created, you would have found the following, which, if nothing else, should have convinced you I wasn't a vandal:


"wirthling sucks" is an internet meme on many websites, much like "OBEY" or "All your base are belong to us" was. Except he sucks more. The article is being linked to in multiple forums so the etymology and ontology of the meme can be explained.
I quote from the Wikipedia's official policy on criteria for speedy deletion:
"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it. The word 'speedy' in this context refers to the quickness of the decision making process and not the length of time elapsed since article creation."
It had only been up minutes when it was deleted. Please allow some time for the people who enjoy this meme to add to the article.

--Manoshevitz 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. But, whether the meme exists or not, it is difficult to assume good faith when you three times create an article where the sole content is the word 'sucks':

   * 15:58, 28 December 2005 Doc glasgow deleted "Wirthling" (content was: 'sucks' (and the only contributor was 'Manoshevitz'))
   * 15:51, 28 December 2005 Doc glasgow deleted "Wirthling" (content was: 'sucks' (and the only contributor was 'Manoshevitz'))
   * 13:01, 28 December 2005 MONGO deleted "Wirthling" (content was: 'sucks{{d}}')

--Doc ask? 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, since it doesn't appear to be registering, I was simply creating the page so I could link it in multiple forums. It would be akin to starting an "All Your Base" article and leaving "Are Belong to Us" in the content field til the forum users could contribute. I thought that point was stated pretty clearly here:

"The article is being linked to in multiple forums so the etymology and ontology of the meme can be explained."

And again, in hopes that the site's official policy on speedy deletion will register with you:

"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it. The word 'speedy' in this context refers to the quickness of the decision making process and not the length of time elapsed since article creation."

The two comments made by users below mine seems to indicate this is a pattern of yours. Easy to attribute the problem to the writers, but when multiple people point out the same grievance with you, you might start looking at things you could do better. For example, reading an article's discussion page before deleting it.

--Manoshevitz 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Concernes

Hello there. I was thinking of your request earlier, and it sounds kind of irrelevent that I was vandalizing, could you please explain what my error was on my talk page, ime new here, and I just came from uncyclopedia. Thank you for your time --Cao An Min 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that you have come from unencyclopedia is part of the problem. Wikipedia is not unencyclopedia, but an encyclopedia and How to make nunchucks and 20 things i like about uncyclopedia were not suitable articles for wikipedia. Perhaps if you review WP:WELCOME and WP:NOT before further editing you might find yourself less likely to be mistaken for a vandal. --Doc ask? 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This user, Cao_An_Min (talk • contribs), is starting to irritate me... - CobaltBlueTony 21:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me

pardon me for interupting i do think i irritate no one--Cao An Min 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, if you want blocked. Then please just post 'block me' on this page and it will save us all a lot of time. Other than that - find something constructive to do. --Doc ask? 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting my user page after it was vandalized. (Apparently someone didn't like the fact that I flagged their attack page as {{db-attack}}.) --Bachrach44 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldova

Hi doc, User:Bonaparte has asked me to semi-protect Moldova page, rather than protecting it, so the registered editors could expand the content. I was wondering if it would be okay to grant the request? Thanks. --BorgQueen 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about using semi-protection in case of edit wars. It rather privillages the side that is ogged in. I've inprotected the page now, so let's see what happens.--Doc ask? 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Is better always to block the users rather then block the page. -- Bonaparte talk 10:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Generally I agree, but, as far as I could see, there was no simple vandalism or 3RR violations, just a lame edit war. --Doc ask? 10:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Parys Blocked 1000s Of Library users from Wikipedia

spam removed

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Doc glasgow//16Jan06! I've been on wikibreak for this past week, so here is a belated thank-you for your support in my successful RFA, and thanks for all your work in the project in general. Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Archbishop Burke Article-

I am trying to restore the St. Stanislaus Kostka Church(St. Louis) link to the Archbishop Burke article and I am not very successful.Would you please help.Many thanks for your help.Also User Holly in Wisconsin Wiki Project has been very helpful and supportive.ThanksRFD 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you-Archbishop Burke article.

Many thanks for fixing the link to the Archbishop Burke article.RFD 17:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Devolution

For anyone reading the correspondance that follows, this began when I edited Template:User Devolution to say 'this user is interested in editing articles concerning...' from the POV 'this user supports...'. I viewed my change as NPOV, and useful for identifying editors who might help with an article, rather than just those who shared a POV. --Doc ask? 21:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Why is "This user supports devolution within the United Kingdom." POV, but " This user supports the independence of England" is not? Was it the link to the article about Devolution? Keith Greer 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it back (and removed the devolution link), it is one of a range of User boxes concerning the UK Here. Keith Greer
Having templates in the general template space for a specific POV, clearly offends against WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable (the link is irrelevant). The fact that other templates offend is not an excuse. I've placed a fuller explanation on the talk page of the template. --Doc ask? 19:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But it says on the page that, these specific, Userboxes are for "For general beliefs in terms of views, ethics and ideologies." One of My beliefes is that Devolution is a good thing for the United Kingdom so I added an Infobox for like minded people. Some people are against the euro so there is the {{user NoEuro}} infobox. Thats the point of them unlike the greater Wikipedia they are POV. But if you feel so strongly I am just going to put the templage up for deleation theres no point in keeping it.
There is more information about Userboxes on the Userbox page. thanks. Keith Greer 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur completely. Userboxes are userspace, therefore POV is not a problem. —Nightstallion (?) 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes are perhaps in userspace - but userbox templates are in the general space and thus WP:NPOV certainly does apply. --Doc ask? 20:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That is why they are always prefixed with "User_" so the can be distinguished as a userbox and therefore may contain POV to some extent. Keith Greer 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where the WP:NPOV says that certain prefixes allow POV to 'some extent'? NPOV is non-negotiable. --Doc ask? 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being decidedly non-cooperative out of a technicality. Any special reason for that? —Nightstallion (?) 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I genuinely don't understand that remark. With what/whom do you expect me to cooperate? And more importantly to what end? --Doc ask? 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV has never applied on User pages. As these templates are only for use on user pages, NPOV does not apply. Otherwise we'd have to NPOV stuff like {{test}}. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does apply to templates - how is test POV? --Doc ask? 10:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too

You mean with respect to userboxes etc? Yeah. People have done things wrong and (fewer) things right, and there are already so many other people commenting etc. that I don't think anything I might say would likely get heard amid the din. Getting involved in debates of that nature is always a contributor to wikistress, and I just sort of don't feel like handling it at the moment. -Splashtalk 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark and nicko

Hi doc. I belive this message was intended for you: [1] --BorgQueen 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've warned him not to recreate his vanity article. --Doc ask? 15:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

User:71.39.90.77 has vandalized Ottoman Empire more than once. At least i can say 8 times and 3 times reverted. By the way thans for reverting. At the same time, i was reverting using my normal user powers:)--Ugur Basak 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If he does it once more, I will block him. --Doc ask? 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unmoved by my arguements

Wetman (talk • contribs) is finding me unconvincing and I really don't know enough about this area to stand comfortably. Snail was unhesitant in saying that www.seanmultimedia.com should be shot on sight, but User:Snail is red. Advice?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The site is selling a book. IMO, it should be shot on site. --GraemeL (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, just found a deep link that looks OK. The home page would be bad though. --GraemeL (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, the commercial website is actually providing access to original texts - so links might be OK if, and only if, they direct directly to the text pages eg Fragments of Papius --Doc ask? 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Matthew 2:21

Thanks Doc - I'll look at that tomorrow. Right now it's way past my bedtime :-) Dlyons493 Talk 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback button

Hi Doc glasgow//16Jan06. Just a remark. Per, Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting, one should not

"...use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary."

I would argue that using an edit summary makes it easier to understand why exactly you did the revert. This is not a clearcut argument, but I hope I explained my reasoning. This is in response to your reversion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Thank you. (You can reply here if you would like to comment on this.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reversed my edits. But when someone is obviously out to stir up trouble it is hard to resist the urge. --Doc ask? 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I know very well who that someone is, and I symphathise with you. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jesus

Please consider looking in on this article and the recent changes; I cannot revert again. KHM03 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in bed when this happened - but it seems others have sorted it. --Doc ask? 11:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You might like to fly by WP:AFD for yesterday (Wednesday), we are back on the old 'Bible verse' nonsense again. --Doc ask? 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Chav vehicle modification

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav vehicle modification (2nd nomination). Uncle G 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

{{User userbox purge}}

Hello. I am led to believe that you deleted the above template. Could you please give the reasoning? I would be very grateful. Best regards and thanks in advance. --Jamdav86 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly an attack page (comparing someone's actions to a murdering dictator) and unhelpful to building an encyclopedia. It is currently listed on deletion review WP:DRV, where you will find my full reasoning and you can comment if you wish. Thanks. --Doc ask? 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the opinion expressed on DRV that the status of this template as an attack is debatable. I don't suppose you'd consider restoring and arguing for deletion via normal channels? Friday (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If DRV was clearly saying I was wrong and that the item had some merit, I would do that, but it isn't. I can't see how restoring it serves any purpose. --Doc ask? 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think deleting it made the situation worse, not better. But, you may well be right- it's possible that undeleting it now won't help either. Oh well. Friday (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PA block

Whew. First you should know I love you like chocolate on my birthday, ok? But...while I'm all for blocking for personal attacks (see first entry on WP:PAIN history) and I hate boxen and I think KM2 was appropiate to delete... I can't agree with the block based upon what I'm seeing. Did they get a warning? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have indicated I will unblock him, if he indicates he will desist from such actions. --Doc ask? 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Urm, I guess we could consider the block itself a first warning and posting it again a second offence. Block away with my blessing, thanks for listening. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked him, after reasonably satisfactory assurances that he had got the message. --Doc ask? 12:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope you didn't mind me asking. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm always happy to be invited to review my decisions - and not to proud to admit and reverse any mistakes. It is always better to be asked 'are you sure about....?' than get vitriol or worse an Rf'x' filed. --Doc ask? 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin template

The CSD for user request reads:

Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created.

In my opinion, it is something of a stretch to say that Rob created {{User support Kelly Martin}} as a mistake (even if he would prefer not to be associated with it now), and he certainly wasn't the only one to edit it (though admittedly the edits didn't actually end up changing anything). I would have prefered the TFD be completed rather than speedying it in this way. By letting Rob control its fate you are taking the de facto position that he has "owenership" over the template rather than saying it belongs to the community as a whole (which in my opinion it began to as soon as other users chose to start including it on their pages). Dragons flight 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, call it IAR if you will, but these things are causing nothing but grief. The template served no constructive purpose and the humour Rob intended had long since evaporated. Does anyone want the template? No. Well now it is gone, and wikipedia is none the worse for it. List it on WP:DRV if you want, but what purpose does it serve? --Doc ask? 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well at least some people voted keep, and former Arbcom member Ambi was one of those with it included on their page, so I would consider it a bit of a stretch to say that no one wanted. Dragons flight 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln

I came here to talk about this guy getting blocked for creating {{User oppose Kelly Martin}}, and to ask if the content was anything other than just the opposite of {{User support Kelly Martin}}, but I see that that's now red as well... sweet. What the hell is wrong with everyone? Why is everyone doing stupid stuff? (I mean the second block, by the way.)

I understand that creating the "oppose" template (I'm assuming it was not an attack) was a bad idea... but so was the "support" one. And the people who created that should have kown better. Is there something in the water? Are we shooting idiot-shaped photons out of the wikipedia logo straight into people's brains? Jumping jesus on a pogo stick, I am really loosing my faith here.

brenneman(t)(c) 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're losing your faith because He's jumping on a pogo stick? Rather hard to take that seriously, :-) But seriously, I can't make out why people are getting so worked up about this either. Dmcdevit·t 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, the 'support' template was Rob Church's joke. It was quite funny, until idiots began to create oppose ones, some with quite nasty attacks. I deleted the support one after discussing the matter with Rob to try to nip the whole thing in the bud. There was no bad faith here.
I blocked User:Dschor for creating a 'Kelly Martin is a fascist' style userbox. I thien unblocked him after an hour, when in discussion I thought he'd got the message that personal attack userboxes were not a good idea. He indicated he wouldn't create any more. However, he did, and it was TfD'd and although it was not as offensive, another admin took the view that it was disruptive and a PA. Given that the user broke his parole to me, I'm not going to oppose that block (although it was not my doing). The whole thing is absurd, and folk should just knock it off - but you can see the rants on DScor's page yourself. --Doc ask? 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholly with that last sentance... I just think that "folks" includes the second blocker and the person who edited his user page as well. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for taking action against vandalism at World Naked Bike Ride. Dandelion1 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to help a fellow nudist :) --Doc ask? 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You are hereby appointed Witch Finder General. Unfortunately, the budget is rather tight and you need to supply your own matches for any burnings. Please read the instruction manual above before proceeding.
You are hereby appointed Witch Finder General. Unfortunately, the budget is rather tight and you need to supply your own matches for any burnings. Please read the instruction manual above before proceeding.


Thanks GraemeL, but I was hoping to audition for the role of witch (but I guess that's taken). --Doc ask? 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox peace

You know what? I agree so much with what you said, i'm going to add a new userbox that says "This user f*cking hates userboxes". :-) Mr Spum 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to userboxes per se (I use some myself). What folk put on a userpage (providing it is civil) does not bother me. I think the use of the template space is problematic, and I think some folk are getting so obsessed with the 'rights' of the 'virtual community', and point scoring and wiki-battling, that they have forgotten why we are here - the encyclopedia thing. I have objected to categorising wikipedians by POV, but of course individuals should be free to declare theirs on their own user page. --Doc ask? 14:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post banned userbox code on my talk page

I noticed that the template:User Boxpurge was deleted, apparently without opportunity for comment. Please be so kind as to post the source code for that box on my talk page. I am want to create a section on my userpage of non-template userboxes, and want to include that one. — Eoghanacht talk 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another version of the same thing at Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate, although, hopefully, it will soon be gone too. --Doc ask? 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I know what it says at the top of the page, however I didn't feel obliged, I just wanted to, so sorry --pgk(talk) 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven. Good luck. --Doc ask? 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Test7

That's a good idea regarding the name; I think {{vandalblock}} is a good name I think I'll create a redirect for it at {{test7}} though. JYolkowski // talk 17:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Box

I wasn't aware it was deleted because whomever deleted it to begin with never made a note of it on the discussion page. Also I was unaware of the other box up for TFD. And seeing as the two boxes refered to different events one being 1/1/06, mine being the larger purge of 1/4/06 I don't see how you can call it a fork.Gateman1997 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedies don't generally get notes on discussion pages. Stop splitting hairs - the same principle will apply to this as to the one on TfD - let's await the outcome. Meanwhile, what about writing an encyclopedia and letting bumper stickers rest. --Doc ask? 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you would do well to follow your own advice and stop pestering the templates. Speedy deletion of these will only stir the pot. --Dschor 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 01:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Do we need a new template space for userboxes? Would that make it all better? I think these speedy deletions are out of hand, and the justifications are slim and slimmer. If the problem is that they are in a wiki-wide space, then maybe there should be another place for them. At the moment, there is not, and they are being deleted out of process. I thought that people would know better by now, but it seems that there are some slow learners among us (you can count me as one if you desire). --Dschor 12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ones that are useful to the wikipedia project (indicating languages, relevant skills, subject knowledge, interests 'this user edit articls on x', project paricipation, possible nationality etc.) should be in the main template space (and one or two inoffensive humourous ones there used to quite fun). I am a supporter of useful userboxes and wikipedian-categories. But template space is for assisting the project - not for having (potentially) thousands of userboxes on trivial things and divisive. (You realise the logic of you position is that we can have userbox templates for every small town, primary school, hockey club, or membership of a garage band - and even ones that say 'user x should be banned'.) Let me say again, I have no problem whatsoever with userboxes on userpages (except if they break WP:NPA), my problem is with templates. Keep userboxes on your userpage. If you see one you like on someone else's then paste the code to your own - and then we can all be happy. Our inclusionist deletion policy is designed to stop the deletion of encyclopedic material, it is being misused by a vocal minority to justify the retention of stuff that has not even an arguable utility to the project. (Ironically, Tony Sidaway - whom you berate as a deletionist, is actualy notorious for being an inclusionist of encyclopedic material.) --Doc ask? 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I can accept a certain amount of regulation in template space if that is the community consensus, but speedy deletion prevents users from preserving their existing user pages by removing the content of their userboxes. More troubling to me is that Tony has insisted on personally editing my user page, for the sole purpose of defacing my opinions. This is not WP:CIVIL and looks more like WP:DICK with each editor who joins the pile. I would prefer if the deletionists would simply make their way to the policy discussion on userboxes, rather than vandalizing my user page. Or, better yet, they could try editing some articles, rather than wasting time removing content from my user page which I will simply replace. --Dschor 11:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in editing anyone's userspace. And within the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:FU you can have what you want there - and as many userboxes as you wish. If we could agree that non-encyclopedic useful userboxes were to be confined to userspace, I would be content that they remained in the template space for a given time to allow folk to subst into userspace. There is little point in contributing to policy discussion, as the 'discussion' is stacked with project userbox supporters. Please don't call people 'deletionists' it is unhelpful to label people into groups, and many of those opposed to userbox templates are actually more like inclusivists in other areas. As for your closing remark 'try editing some articles', fine, but that rubstoo ways. If folk did that rather than playing games with creating pointless and divisive templates then we wouldn't be in this mess. --Doc ask? 12:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'This mess' began with mass deletion. To pretend otherwise is absurd. So long as administrators fail to understand that they have a responsibility to act fairly, the mess will only continue to grow. You may not like the way the discussion on userboxes is going, but you should be civil enough to respect the project, and if you have some suggestions, make them at the appropriate place. It shouldn't take a huge outcry for administrators to understand that they can easily do more harm than good by acting rashly. --Dschor 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo

Hi Doc. I was going to support Mailer Diablo for Arbcom but saw you voted oppose. Do you mind sharing your reasons? I value your opinion. Thanks, Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He simply didn't give enough information. What would he do on Arbcom? What are his views? I've no idea. He gave me no reason to support. That doesn't seem to take the process seriously enough. --Doc ask? 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_GWB

Don't follow the logic of "please await WP:DR brefore restoring": a more compelling argument would seem to be me to "wait for WP:TFD before deleting (yet again)". I'm not a big fan of this template, but the case that it's "speediable" seems extraordinarily tenuous (and the "incitement to vandalism" stuff moreso). Alai 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, would you speedy it as an attack if it were an article? Clearly yes. Why are templates any different? That is, aside from the technicallities of wikilawyering CSD - but if we follow that literally, then I can create 'this user thinks user x is a total arsehole' and it can't be speedied. We don't want attack templates period - we speedy attacks. Besides which, what possible benefit to the encyclopedia is this? Not one person agruing 'keep' on DRV or TFD, even tries to argue it is of benefit. All keep arguments are purely process, and not based on the project's goals. --Doc ask? 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Because User space has always been more liberal than articles, and besides from the technicality that it lives in Template space and appears in some large table of userboxes, all of its actual uses belong to User space. Would you delete from userspace any reference to hating Bush in any form? Please accept the absurdity of the recent wheel warring as proof that consensus has not been established on this issue and go work to lay before the community a clear proposal on dealing with userboxes rather than continuing this nonsense. Dragons flight 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
See my reply to Dschor above #userboxes. Anyway, I've tried a compromise to avoid the wheel war - I've removed the attack from the template. --Doc ask? 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel I'm doing to have to start quoting "rule by decree" and Robert Bolt at the increasing use of "product before process" as a mantra. It's a by-intention-if-not-namespace user space "attack" (of sorts) on a person, not a wikipedian, so not really within the intended scope of any of NPOV (on the first grounds), NPA or CIV (on the second). I'm not even going to argue it should be kept, just that invoking IAR to "cut through process", and then ending up creating more it in the fallout, isn't "skillful means" to achieve an end. Alai 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it you mean: I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal? (St. Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons). But I could quote back Francis Bacon, laws were like cobwebs; where the small flies were caught, and the great break through. Or better still Saint Paul we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient. Or perhaps best of all Anacharsis Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them. :). --Doc ask? 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that exact line (being far less modest than More, and infinitely less devout, I'm pretty sure I do know what's right here), but that passage, yes (was quite chuffed to find it quoted on the AMfAS page, after the fact, would have linked to that directly had I noticed it earlier). Trouble is, we already do enforce the laws on the "little flies", so the choice isn't law vs. none, it's vs. selective application, and thus the worst of both worlds (which is essentially what two of your quotes are banging on about anyway. Paul I'll pass on, under the "don't get me started" category. Alai 02:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the wheel war is now over - and I'll certainly push this no further. It is time for others to decide. --Doc ask? 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Born again

Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. Thanks...KHM03 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam, pure and simple - revert on sight. --Doc ask? 01:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I kinda max out my daily reverts with this particular user. I've suggested to him that we try and work together, that he explain exactly why he wants the link, etc., but he doesn't seem to want to cooperate. He's been blocked once already, I'd really prefer we find a consensus, and he's asked other editors to voice their opinions on the talk page. So if and when you have a moment...KHM03 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you patience is a lost cause - bu kudos for trying. I've expressed an opinion in agreement with you, so I can't now intervene as an admin if he continues to edit-war - but it looks like others have marked his card. The wind blows where it will. --Doc ask? 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. KHM03 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Doc, I'm going to unblock Sansvoix, I think pointlessly because he appears to have left, but I'm doing it anyway. You say you don't want to get involved in the Gmaxwell business, but he's been bullying Sansvoix for a couple of days, and then threatened to have an involved party block him. [2] You blocked him just one hour later and so I assume you were the admin he turned to. I'm asking you not to restore the block. For one thing, if he's left, there's no need, but aside from that, it would make more sense to find out whether this is a fair-use image. Sansvoix seems to believe sincerely that it isn't because the author has been dead for over 50 years. I don't know who is correct, but it seems to me that he is causing no disruption, and sincerely feels he is being picked on, an opinion with which I concur because I saw how and why it started. I hope you'll find a way to discuss this with him rationally without resorting to blocks. As you know, I strongly disapprove of undoing another admin's blocks and I've argued against it several times, so I'm not doing this lightly. Gmaxwell's recent actions appear to have caused this user to leave, have caused me to stop editing at least temporarily and perhaps completely, and are about to cause a third to leave too, I sense, though I hope I'm wrong. That's enough damage from one user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, assumptions can be very dangerous. Actually, I had not been contacted by Gmaxwell, indeed I don't know that user at all. As far as I understand policy, images tagged as FU cannot be used. I indicated that if Sansvoix agrees to comply with policy, I would immediately unblock. If the tag is wrong, then he can dispute the tag. If we follow your logic, then anyone can use a FU tagged image by suggesting that they believe the tag is wrong. That makes for an unworkable and unenforcable policy. I'm enough of a lawyer to know that copyright is a serious matter. The recent arbcom orbita dictum is warrant enough for blocking after a warning.
When I re-applied my block after your first unblocking, I suggested that we could discuss this, or you could take it too ANI (I'm not arrogant enough to think I can't be wrong), but you have chosen to unilaterally undo my block a second time, despite your recent comments on unblocking on ANI. Frankly, this smells like hypocracy. Maybe I'm wrong about policy - but you should not not continually undo my blocks without discussion. I will not continue this wheel war. Since you havn't taken the matter to ANI, I shall. --Doc ask? 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I take all your points and I agree with most of them. I am simply asking you to find another way to deal with Sansvoix, assuming he is prepared to continue editing. Gmaxwell has caused quite a bit of ill-feeling over the last couple of days regarding some images. Sansvoix stepped up to defend me at one point, and so Gmaxwell started on him instead, and I therefore feel responsible. I accept that your arrival was cooincidence, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions. So far as I can see, there are no fair-use images on Sansvoix's user page now, and I will ask him not to restore them if he returns, so there is no reason to maintain a block now. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There are no images there, because I removed them. I had always said I would unblock him, if he agreed not to restore them - but no such assurance ever came. If he was willing to do that, you didn't need to unblock him, I would have done it myself. SlimVirgin,I don't doubt your good faith, but it looks to me like you have become too close to this user and too much in disagreement with Gmaxwell for you to be acting as an impartial admin in this case, much less overrule another admin's judgement. If you had come to me, I would have been happy to discuss this with you - and had you got assurances from Sansvoix, I would have immediately unblocked. If we couldn't agree - I would have been happy to seek other opinions on ANI. But it appears to me you saw this as some type of 'war' with Gmaxwell, and you took a side to fight the fight. You acted unilaterally, when you were clearly involved, that's not good. I may well have been wrong to block - the whole area is grey - but that's for discussion not wheel waring. I have now put the matter on ANI to get some more opinions. It would have been better had it gone there before now. --Doc ask? 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry, and I agree with almost everything you say, except I must add that I am not close to Sansvoix and had had no dealings with him until recently, but I watched how and why this situation started, and so I'm informed, which isn't the same as not being impartial. But I take your point anyway and I appreciate what you're saying. I've left a note on Sansvoix's talk page asking him not to restore the images, [3] though he appears to have left so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, apology accepted. Next time, let's talk it through. I'm afraid I've been a little aggressive with a few people lately, so I've probably been more bull-headed over this than I needed to be. Peace. --Doc ask? 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Have some coffee!

A nice cup of coffee, to enjoy during your break :-) Do come back though! Take care, JoanneB 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A nice cup of coffee, to enjoy during your break :-) Do come back though! Take care, JoanneB 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure if coffee is the best drink if you're stressed, but oh well, it's the thought that counts, isn't it? Regards, --JoanneB 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta - it's the thought that counts (perhaps decaf - or better an Irish Coffee)--Doc ask? 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rest easy...have a good break. KHM03 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse"

I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote:[4] Camillus (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't spam for votes. There is no particular reason why I would be interested in this. However, I have speedied it, as per the orignial AfD. The article was kept and redirected, in the race of an obvious deletion vote. --Doc ask? 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I was spamming for votes, as I had no way of knowing what way those I did contact would vote - my first post was to the person who created the redirect, and then I posted to 2 users who I know are interested in football, and 3 UK Wikipedians, as it obviously is primarily related to football and the UK. Spamming for votes, in my opinion, is when you alert users who you suspect will agree with you. Camillus (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just didn't know why you had contacted me. If it is just because I am from the UK, then consider what would happen if someone posted on my page every time a UK issue arose. You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board - I believe it has a means of alerting UK users to UK issues, if they choose to put it on their watchlist (which many will). Hope that helps. --Doc ask? 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, re UK notice board. Won't trouble you again. Camillus (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to trouble me, if it is something you think I'd be specifically interested in, or if I can help you as an admin. --Doc ask? 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion reversed

I have undeleted Template:User vandal - there is no agreement at all that it should be deleted, and at the time you deleted it the TFD discussion made this clear. ~~ N (t/c) 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over this. This template is clearly a WP:POINT, created for no purpose, and used by no-one. I was close to deleting it as pure vandalism. The TfD discussion is stacked with a bunch of people who argue 'userbox - keep', but we don't keep attacks, and vandalism magnets. --Doc ask? 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling it "User vandal" is a fairly silly name, but how is declaring that one attended the University of Idaho (whose sports teams are called the Vandals) an attack on anyone? Dragons flight 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since most of the world (including me) are not familliar with that fact, it looks like a personal attack. Indeed, I supect, it is designed to look like oen. Keep 'in' jokes to userspace please. --Doc ask? 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a cute pun to me, not an "attack", nor is their concensus to delete it.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I can now see that it is a pun, as I have now been told that 'vandal' is a self-description of that university. Without that knowledge, it just looked like an attack, calling students of a certain university 'vandals', and I didn't need consensus to delete an attack page, that's what we do. Now that I'm informed that it isn't an attack, I won't delete it as such. Although how the current stacked TfD debates can be called 'consensus' beats me. --Doc ask? 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ming Campbell campaign site

Could you please explain to me why have you just deleted the link to Ming Campbells campaign site, which I added to the article about him? Thanks.--Libs 16:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the link on the Ming page. We only insert external links that provide the reader with additional information on the subject. No promotional linkes. The link you inserted was in fact to a site that is not yet up. If you are connected with the webite, do not insert the link as that might be considered promotional spamming. Suggest it on the talk page, and, if it is felt appropriate, someone else can insert it. --Doc ask? 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not connected with the site, actually, if you can verify the IP-addresses, you might find out that I'm not even in the same country. But though it is a promotional site, as soon as it is up, it will provide additional information about the subject. Of course it will not be made of a neutral point of view, but I think that people who are searching information about Ming Campbell because of the leadership election might find the information provided there useful. It was my intention to add also the respective sites of the other participants, as soon as I can find them.--Libs 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your wonrd for the first bit. It is impossible for other editors to evaluate the usefulness of the site until it is up and running, so don't do anything until then. If this site is Ming's official candidate site (and I'm not sure it is) then it might be relevant on his page, but the sites of other candidates certainly would not be. Perhaps all of them might be better added to the article on the LibDem election its self. That page should certainly link to all the ooficial campaign site of the candidates. --Doc ask? 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course what I meant was, that I would add the campaign sites of other candidates to the articles about those candidates, not to the article about Ming Campbell. Anyway, it seems now that the official campaign site of Ming is http://www.campbellcampaign.org/ .--Libs 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, yes, I had forgotton (or was trying to) that this nonsense was still going on. --Doc ask? 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing

"I saw no need to further embarass you on ANI"

Was that sarcasm or just an exaggeration? At time, you, Owen and Radiant were mainly the only who said anything. That seemed a bit out of line so I removed that line from my talk (archived now).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes sorry. No, the comment was genuine at the time. I was hoping to sort out the dunlop article with you more privately. I have to confess, when you defended your deletion I stopped being so nice - sorry, I regret posting on ANI. Re. your comments on afd, I agree, indeed I nearly left in Novemer in despair at the cruft-including deletion-aversion mentality of some. I guess that's why when I find interesting articles getting deleted I get bulshy, I see so much crap being kept (and now shitty userboxes, but don't get me started on that). --Doc ask? 00:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
A week ago I though about taking and AfD break, now I am really considering it. Problem is: I want to be the one to close contraversial AfDs for this reason. On the other hand, closing AfDs get stressful, especially when people undelete claiming that my actions were totally illegitimate (never happens on the ones I think are truly contreversial though), especially when other admins agree with me, so I know it was not that unreasonable. If people would just relist by saying "I believe that this AfD does not have a clear enough consensus" I would likely have no problem with it, but everthing is done with the "attitude". Some people, like Splash, as MONGO has also noted, always critique with the "attitude". There are a lot of things I like about Splash though, so it is much less of a problem then when some random person disrespects me needlessly.
The content being defended at AfD is often horrid WP:NOR/NOT/POV (against policy) and wrong, yet people will then accuse me of violating policy by wanting to delete it. Eventually, I start to get "attitutes" in certain areas, like AfD, so maybe I should take a break.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes the 70% deletion requirement is OK when we are pondering how encyclopedic or notable things are, but it is hopeless with verifiability. I once, on the strength of my PhD studies, testified that an article was about something that didn't exist, and scholars weren't discussing - only to have it kept as some morons votes 'looks interesting to me'. I sometime think we need a distinct process for deletign unverifiable articles. You nominate, and their is no 'vote', it is binary - if someone verifies it, it stays, if not, it goes, regardless of how many clowns think it worth keeping. AfD is broke, cos it will not delete anying that is fun nd popular, so we work round it - and then we get grief from the process adicts. --Doc ask? 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I really agree with the stuff on your main page.
I know this will never happen, but what if we have a deletion committee. So as to avoid too much red tape, we can have admins close as usual, however, votes will have two sections: Tally and a Discussion section with a "Reasons to keep", "Reasons to delete", and an "Reasons to x" section (x can be merge, transwiki, anything like that). So far, these are somewhat minor changes. Admins will close as usual, however "NO CONSENSUS" will no longer mean "KEEP".
If there is no consensus, the page is submited to the committee, where they vote. A 2/3 majority from them is needed for action. The old tally will just be there to see some rough numbers (so it wont matter much anymore). The committe will vote and discuss, and that will be the decision, save deletion review.
The committee will be selected like Arbcom, and only will deal with "no consensus" cases.
The "no consensus=Keep" is the biggest problem on AfD now. We can have 5 delete, 2 redirect (almost the same, save article history) and three trolls can just add on keep and there you go..."no consensus" Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillard Library, which was deleted not because it does not exist but because the sockpuppets weighing in there had made almost no edits? No idea how to fix the problem, though. On one hand, the amount of cluelessness and cruft-defending mentality on VfD (sometimes defended by WP:BITE makes one furious, on the other hand I find that a wiki runs on the Delphi method, so not following some process of gathering evidence will break it. The "Snoop Dogg bootleg disaster" urges everyone to exercise caution. Pilatus 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As a lawyer by training and an amature sociologist by dabbling, I have long predicted that wikipedia will have to becoem more legalistic as she grows. New social groups start with charismatic unstructured authority, but eventually need to institutionalise or die. The problem is, that the current rules are pretty indefensible in places. And the 70% threshhold prevents progress. The only solution is to provide leadership of people that know what they are talking about (either subject experts, or editors who have grasped what as encyclopedia is not). I quite like Voice's suggestion, except you will never get something like that agrees. See the comments on my userpage. See our inability to solve the userbox fiasco.--Doc ask? 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday Wikipedia

I noticed that you posted on your user page about the subject, so I created a template that you may like to use: {{User wishes Wikipedia a happy birthday}}. --GraemeL (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

AAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh --Doc ask? 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Aleksandar Guzijan

Well now I'm confused. Special:Contributions/Aleksandar Guzijan reveals that there was a user by that name who hasn't edited since January 2002. But if you go to User:Aleksandar Guzijan, you'll see there are no links in the toolbox on the left for "User contributions", "Block user", and "E-mail this user". --Angr (tɔk) 16:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right - bizzare. I think we should alert a dev, this is obviously a glitch in the martrix! --Doc ask? 17:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Robchurch tells me it is of no consequence :) --Doc ask? 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Barnstar-copyvio.PNG

Cleaned up for you.
Cleaned up for you.

Cleaned up a bit for you and switched to PNG. -- Essjay Talk • Contact 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better thanks - I might even propose it for 'official' ststus. --Doc ask? 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Duty-faith

I've actually never heard that term, which tells me it can't be that important. I've pointed it out to a Calvinist or two. Thanks for the heads up...KHM03 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a calvanist - and not familiar with it. But my systematics is rusty. --Doc ask? 20:50, 16 January 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__16Jan06_8b79.html"