User talk:Doc glasgow/28April06

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

Don't Threaten Me

that wasn't even my statement to begin with. You have no right to delete other users opinions --T-rex 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1,000,000th Article is pertinent to your area

The Jordanhill Railway Station is in a suburb of Glasgow, so I thought maybe when you get word of it being the millionth article, you might possibly visit the station, take some photos, and upload it onto the article. --Shultz III 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Was it really neccesary to remove the " and cannot figure out why other Americans have trouble with [metric units] " from Template:user_metric_wish-1?? That was the whole point of the userbox.--Weatherman1126 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

Ian13/talk 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing strange

I see nothing strange about -Ril- requesting to have you banned. I see something very wrong, but not strange. He is trying to intimidate and cow the less vocal, just as he says his critics are doing. Robert McClenon 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of -Ril-

Perhaps you find the allegation that User:Melissadolbeer is a sockpuppet of -Ril- to be absurd because she insults -Ril-. I think that -Ril- is engaging in a form of Internet theater that uses puppets in a way that is typical of ventriloquism. A ventriloquist often has a dummy (i.e., puppet) who insults or argues with or makes personal attacks on the puppet-master. It is not a particularly common form of behavior by Internet trolls, but it is a form of theater. It does not change the fact that -Ril- is disrupting the encyclopedia and should be banned. Robert McClenon 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64

I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

FireFox Update

Hey, Doc. While on IRC I noticed in your quit message (which is auto-generated by Chatzilla) that you're using FF 1.0.7 which, I might add, is over 6 months old. As someone who contributes to FireFox, I encourage you to update to the newest version, 1.5.0.1. It's chock full of new fixes and features (Changelogs: 1.5 1.5.0.1) Cheers, ZsinjTalk 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oi!

You trying to steal my spammer? --GraemeL (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stadler GTW

That article was NOT gibberish, it had been machine transated from the German language wikipedia, and needed to be cleand up, not deleted. The artcle already exits on the Teutophone wikipedia I was trying to establish an Anglophone version.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)v:-(

I had no way of knowing that. I suggest you use a sandbox for works in progress, and don't submit articles into the main namespace until they are in English. --Doc ask? 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

?

Why did you revert my edit? That message will save us a great deal of page moving and relinking later.Gateman1997 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


, sorry meant to post a reason on your page. avoid self-references. Instrustions on how to create articles belong on talk pages, or projects, not article pages. --Doc ask? 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to place that message in the sentence where it currently says "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."? I think it needs to be promenantly placed so people actually will read it. I'm afraid the talk page is most often ignored.Gateman1997 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wont revert it, as long as it isn't in the body of the article. --Doc ask? 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
How's that?Gateman1997 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Can you please undelete the Font Exploit page if possible. It is a major thing in the PSP community that needs discussion and is there to help others.

Re:Prod and Speedy

Many thanks for the words of wisdom. I didn't realize that was the correct procedure, but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Best, Gwernol 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2

A final decision has been reached in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A Question for You

On my RfA, you stated that "[you're] not happy with editors that feel the need to use their userspace for advocacy". On the RfA, I asked you a question, "What am I advocating with my userpage?" joturner 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused by your message

Doc glasgow, I am so confused by your message. I am really unable to understand your message whatever you have written on my talk page. Please make me understand, thanks Shyam (T/C) 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) sorry, I thought, it was written on my talk page. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused too, since I don't recall and can't find my post to your page. Can you copy it here, or give me a diff and I'll try to help? --Doc ask? 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

sure

Okey dokey then. It's no biggie, and I am not going to waste my time on that. The next time I want to link to a webpage I'll make sure to ask you first, since you are so interested in my userspace... -- Karl Meier 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to help --Doc ask? 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It's just great to have a person like "Doc glasgow" deciding what I can and can't have on my userpage. Will you allow my replacement link, or will you spend your night writing new appeals asking other admins to intervene in this most important matter? -- Karl Meier 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm done feeding trolls. --Doc ask? 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I have a link to a troll food shop I can post if you want. --GraemeL (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc's Law

From the admin noticeboard...

Doc's law: The oldest troll tactic on the wiki is to say, 'hey my offensive noise raises profound questions of the freedom of speech' and then sit back whilst otherwise sane editors defend their right to troll

I feel that that was directed at me. If in fact it was, I'd like to point out that the last sentence on my statement said "However, I must point out that if your point here is to troll (as I suspect may be the motive behind the Scientology link), that is not condoned by me." For me, intention is what is important as that is the best indicator of appropriateness (although that is often very hard to discern). For instance, I don't really see the cartoon with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as inappropriate because he probably just thinks it's funny. Whether you agree or anyone else agrees is debateable. Nevertheless, I am glad he removed the content.
What do you think of User:Markaci/Nudity by the way? joturner 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, not really aimed at you. If you look at the move above your post on ANI, you'll not how Karl states 'hey this raises questions of userpage freedom', which distracts from the fact of his trolling. I've seen so much of that move lately from a number of (currently banned) users. Yes, there is a debate about what userspace is for, but we can recognise troll for what they are. --Doc ask? 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to take that page to MfD, you've got my vote. That's what we did with Ril's nudity page last month. --Doc ask? 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Can u help me?

I need ur help for using the logo Image:govtofkerala.gif it is the logo of the government and doesnot seem to be bound by strict (C) restrictions. What shall i do so that it can be used in Wikipedia? Tux the penguin 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User review

You didn't leave the similar message on Kelly Martin's and Mackensen's talk pages, didn't you? It's funny that I'm "reverting another admin's action" and these chaps regularly get away with it. I'm just keeping status quo and Deletion Review is not a place for the discussion whether template should be deleted. TfD is. DR is for discussion whether it was deleted legitimately and it wasn't (and you know it).  Grue  17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Abusivity

Oh you are so dolemical and pivisive I might just usurp a steward account and desysop you. I am almost certain that your recent edits abuse something. If you stop, I will seek advice, in a court of law in New Jersey, about how to deal with you. -Splashtalk 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. Is it New Jersey we use? I always forget. They have so many "New"s over there. -Splashtalk 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Boxes

LOL!!! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up on that. I have to say I'm very disturbed that I'm being stalked in this manner if infact I've got people hunting my every move looking for evidence I might be someone I'm not. Do you have the names of these "determined" people so I can report them to WP:AN/I for stalking? Because at this point that is what it would be. They are attacking a ship that has already sailed. David Gerard himself proved rightly that we're not the same person and moved on, what more do they want? Frankly if this continues I'm off the project as I've done NOTHING to warrant this kind of harrassment. Since I was banned and brought back I've left SPUI pretty much alone, and just edited articles. Yes I commented in his RFC but what's wrong with that. Now I've got his personal goon squad out to kill me? Great place this has become if that's the case. Gateman1997 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this. Unfortunately for the innocent user (and for the policing admins) CU is often undefinative. It can sometimes indicate if IPs are the same or different, but a judgement as to whether or not a user is using two IPs is always about sifting edits and editing patterns. I see no evidence of stalking, but I do see some investigations being made. If you've nothign to hide (and I personally have no reason to dount your word) then you have nothing to fear. If someone thinks they have a case, they will have to bring it into the open in due course. --Doc ask? 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I do have nothing to hide, and frankly it's not that it's being "investigated" that chaps my ass, it's that it's being investigated AGAIN! How many times do they have to prove I'm NOT User:JohnnyBGood until they're satisfied? THAT is the part that is stalking. They're revisiting an issue that was already very traumatic for me and cause me to be blocked for 48 unjustified hours. You don't know how distressing that can be until you are blocked indefinitely and left to rot because the blocking admin and any other admins around won't do anything about it. They just say "email the blocking admin" and guess what... the mother doesn't have a valid email anywhere in the project! You explain this and do they help, NO! This is the only reason I'm still involved with this motherfucking state highway debate at all. I owe Rschen big time and and doing anything I can to help him. I honestly don't give a rats ass or flying fuck about any of the things being discussed but I will support a user who was the only one kind enough to listen to me when I was for all intents and purposes kicked out of the project. I owe him all I can on here. So if I'm taking it too hard that people are resnooping in the same shit looking for something they'll never find, you'll have to excuse me. Gateman1997 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in the RFC. As for the the 'evidence', if there is indeed nothing to find, then they well find nothing. If you are blocked without fair discussion, my e-mail is enabled. --Doc ask? 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, the checkuser was blank. What concerns me is the bias however against these two editors that many Wikipedia editors have, sinply because they're fighting against SPUI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

I did not personally attack him, I didn't say I agree with them at all. I asked him if [the link was the reason he was for the deletion of the Wikipedia Review box, I would've thought that was obvious - WP:AGF? It does seem likely that is the reason he wants the site "removed", as most people in his position probably would. Bob, just Bob 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He did not give it as a reason. And it is not assuming good faith to infer he is motivated my personal feelings of animosity. --Doc ask? 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your blanking of DrV discussions, just like User:Grue was banned for...

Please read Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Blanking_of_DrV_debates_by_User:Doc_glasgow_and_User:Pgk. Bob, just Bob 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way you might want to remove the Wikibreak notice since "I may contribute to some current arbcom cases, but that's it" is obviously not true. Bob, just Bob 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears not - I'm back dealing with trolls as usual. FWIW Grue was blocked for reversing an admin's actions without discusion and blankign a debate. I've done neither of those things. I closed a bad-faith debate and archieved it, which is perfectly proper. --Doc ask? 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

my rfa

I didn't at all think you were accusing me of bias, don't worry. Just figured i'd make that clear as long as you had brought the issue up, politically suggestive userboxes being the contentious issue that they are, and mine proclaiming me as some sort of radical. I got quite a kick out out of your userpage, btw ;) --He:ah? 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gateman1997

I've been asked to assure you that Gateman1997 and I are not the same individual. I've now done this for what it's worth. I know most of the people who are accusing me of having him as a sock have already made their minds up so this is probably futile. But for what it is worth we're not the same person anymore then you or I are. I do track his user contribs as I do SPUIs and Rschens as well. I don't have much of a life so I track them pretty regularly. JohnnyBGood 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Thank you for your support of my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever see me make a mistake in the use of my new tools, please let me know. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub deletions

My objection here is in part to the process; my understanding is that speedy deletion is intended to be used only for decisions that are believed to be noncontroversial, and that a contested prod indicates otherwise. I'm also rather dubious as to whether the speedy nomination was made in good faith (the nomination, not the deletion), since there's a user with whom I've engaged in a dispute who's tagging other prods of contested as speedies even though they clearly don't qualify, as here [1]. Since I can't find out who made the speedy nomination (whether through my ignorance or the Wikipedia software, I don't know), I'd appreciate it if you could advise further. Thanks. Monicasdude 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Both were tagged by User:Calton FWIW, but two different admins accepted his tagging as correct and deleted the articles. I've no idea what the taggers motives were, but the call of the admins was correct per the WP:CSD. Of course, if there is real debate about an article, we should have that on afd, but speedying the odd sub-stub, when the only evidence that anyone values it is that a prod was removed is no crime. Admins have to clean out a lot of trash, sometimes a few things that are borderline get chucked out too.
I think I would want to encourage you to remember that wikipedia values product over process. Sure, if these subjects are good, we should have articles on them, and process should not hinder that. But using DRV to underline a process quibble is generally frowned upon. If you think these subjects are good, then go and create valid stubs, mark them as stubs and they'll probably do fine. Kick up a fuss, if and when someone hinders you doing that. Since anything good will be kept or recreated in the end of the day, this is not worth loosing sleep over, --Doc ask? 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calming down

Doc, I promise I will not utter another word, if you will just take away that totally unfounded comment he left on my Talk page, or at the very least leave your own comment at my Talk saying that there is no foundation for his complaint. Tell me off as much as you like, but please do not allow readers of my talk page to go away with the impression that I have commited some mortal sin, because I haven't. In fact, I have done nothing out of the normal course of Wikipedia procedure whatsoever. --Mais oui! 14:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me RFA 33⅓

Thank you Doc for your support during my third RFA (and priors). The self-nomination was a success, with an unexpected number of participants from all over. I promise to reduce my userboxen and increase my editcounts, but can make no guarantees on the sleep.  ;-) If you ever need anything, are feeling snackish, or would just like to chat, please feel free to visit me on my talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can you use a logo in a template if you've created it, although it is a trademark? Alex 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you own the copyright, and are willing to release it under the GFDL, then yes, otherwise no. --Doc ask? 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

This discussion has been moved, please do not abuse your rollback privileges, thanks! Silensor 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove discussions from DRV, just because you don't like them. --Doc ask? 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has not been blanked, it has been moved, which you would know if you had paid attention to the edit summaries before acting on your impulses. Silensor 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It amounts to the same thing. You are tryign to terminate a discussion you don't like. Stop it. By all means suggest it on the page, and if you get support, then move it. But don't do it unilaterally. --Doc ask? 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Moving a discussion to the appropriate talk page hardly terminates a discussion. This is the inappropriate venue, the article has not been deleted, WP:DRV is not a forum for attempting to delete something that was kept twice on WP:AFD. Silensor 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
DRV may be used to review whether an AFD discussion was rightly implemented. Obviously if an admin closes an AfD as 'keep' when it clearly should be 'delete', that can be reviewed. It may be that the request for review is, in this case, ill-founded, but that can only be determined in the discussion. As I say, suggest moving it elsewhere and see if others agree or object. --Doc ask? 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show me where it says Wikipedia:Deletion review is an appropriate forum for reviewing articles which have been kept. From what I've read, it is not part of the charter. Silensor 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It happens:
Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in other deletion-related fora.
e.g. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

--Doc ask? 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is the exception, not the rule, and I would argue that such a deletion was invalid. Silensor 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Simpsons Movie

Hi, it soen't really matter what it is. You can't use copyrighted images, which are tagged as fair-use outside of articles. Please see WP:FUC for details. Thanks. --Doc ask? 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

okkk,,, I just uploaded one I made my self with photoshop,, I used it instead of the "copyrighted" one --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Replied on talk page. But basically, if you want to play fast an loose with copyright, do it elsewhere. --Doc ask? 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
dude you think I am playing in here, you said I can't use the copyrighted one so I made one my self, similar but not identical, about 75% the same, and plus that was a promotional image,, so in the main article it would contain screenshots and/or posters to promote the movie and have a nice article,, I don't know why you can't put it in the userbox but thats cool, I just don't see why my pic was deleted, the font and the font size wasn't the same, I can send you the PSD file if you want. anyways I created the userbox yesterday or two days ago and so far I am the only one using it,, I don't see a point for it if it was just text, so I replaced it with the speedy del. tag and made sure nothing liked to it at that point, nothing else for me to say --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we do have issues with "way too close" to original images, so I'm not sure even if you re-traced it if it fits in the category -- Tawker 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Monash University Logo

Why was the logo removed from the user template? Other universities have their logo!! Template:User_Uni_Monash

Christian Essenes

Please note that I nominated the article Christian Essenes for deletion as so-far unverifiable (I hate to use that word, as it is too often abused on AfD). It looks as it will be kept based on the keep votes, but unless the group can actually be verified somehow, my interpretation of policy would be that it needs to be deleted or rewritten from scratch to be about whatever Christian wannabe Essene groups that actually verifiably do exist (which makes it pointless to keep the current article in any case). u p p l a n d 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested (well, not really)

I stumbled across Hunter x Hunter today, and I am perplexed. My first impulse was to nominate it for AfD, but I think I can predict how that would go. It's not that I'm sitting around twiddling my thumbs and looking for something to get in trouble with, but I hate to just walk away from it. Ah, hell, if I have to ask for advice on what to do, I guess I know that I should just ignore it and go back to my other chores. Thanks for listening. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

{{User Lest We Forget}}

Why did you remove the image I associated with this template ?? SirIsaacBrock 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check the image page you will see that it is copyrighted, and being used in articles under a 'fair use' claim. Unfortunatley that can't apply to templates and userpages. See WP:FUC for details. --Doc ask? 21:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your point, but you are being over zealous. This is quite common usage Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Canada, there are many examples: Wikipedia:Userboxes Category:Logos Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins have been instruted to be vigilant on this point. All of those logos should actually be removed, I just havn't the time.--Doc ask? 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, for the purposes of Wikipedia these images are allowed see {{logo}} and {{Politicalposter}}. You would have to post a Fair Use tag at the image not delete the place where the image is being used, until that time, the image can linked. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong. Both of those tags say that the image is being used under a 'fair use' assertion. WP:FUC says that fair use assertions may not apply to templates or userspace. Read again more carefully. Admins are instructed to block those who disregard this. --Doc ask? 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the template ? Is the template against the rules too or just the image ?? SirIsaacBrock 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete the template, you'd have to ask the admin who did. --Doc ask? 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hail botmeister

Any chance of your bot removing 'fair use' images from templates and userspace and posting explanations on talk pages? --Doc ask? 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can point me to a list of such images to work from. Category:Fair use images contains upwards of 150,000 images, and most of them aren't a problem. It would take the bot over two weeks to simply go through the category and check each image individually, and I don't have enough free disk space on my computer to host a full mirror of the English Wikipedia.
The bot can turn inlined images on talk pages into image links, and remove images from user pages and category descriptions. It can't remove images from templates, because doing so will often break template formatting.
This work would be done under the FairuseBot account. --Carnildo 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm, thanks for that. I can see it isn't as easy as I thought. We'd need three things - identify images in templates - check if the image is marked 'fair use' - remove the image if it is (or alternatively, categorise the template as 'potential fair use violation' and allow manual removal). Perhaps too difficult. --Doc ask? 19:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

user box "nike products"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies

i do not find any policy within the 40 rules

I quote Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not.--Doc ask? 09:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kramer-2, removal of fair use image

Could you just delete the User Kramer-2 userbox if the image that was there cannot be used? The userbox is rather pointless without an image of Kramer. shijeru 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal

I see you edited Hannibal. I don't know if you've been following the edit war, but there's an attempt to build some sort of consensus to end it, or at least indicate to the admin/sysops in which way to end it. Care to add your 2 cents? - Vedexent 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just chasing a spammer and removign his links - I've no knowledge of the article. --Doc ask? 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on the spammer btw. Its good to be an admin, nice clean rollback. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think it would be fair for everyone if you remove the logos from the other templates as well. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Australia

I would if I had time, but there is nothing to stop you doing it. It would certainly be a help to wikipedia's copyright compliance. --Doc ask? 09:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalachakra King

  • Could you undelete Kalachakra King as of 12 April ? I looked at it and there are only four delete votes there while there are questions, favorable comments and the listing for more through discussion about it which have not been adressed meanwhile. The deletion seems hasty, unforced and unrequested. There seem to be at least five people to the four requesting it, that wanted to get more information first. Provosory undeletion seems right. Kind regards. Geir Smith 08:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The 'vote' (athough it is not a vote) was 4-1. It had already been relisted - so extending it seemed pointless. You seemed to be the only editor arguing keep over the 11 days of the listing. And your extensive arguments were failing to gather any support. It appears to be a virtual recreation of the recently afd'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra ('vote' 12-1 delete) and there are concerns that it is a POV fork of Kalachakra. I see nothing wrong with my closing in those circumstances. --Doc ask? 09:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Doc, the POV fork charge and recreation of another article was not carried by others on the site and it was said there that indeed there's an issue about Kalachakra among the Tibetan community that was reflected with a dispute there. You've thus just shut down not an article as you say but rather a dispute evoked in its subject. That question was not answered by you and you've shut that out. So, my being alone arguing on it is also not true as those holding the arguments I just spoke of were also posting there. At least three people asking questions that didn't point to the clear-cut picture you speak of are there right now on that talk-page. I think it should be undeleted thus. Geir Smith 22:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my decision stands. You are welcome to seek a review on WP:DRV, but I think you have little chance. --Doc ask? 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL IPs

AOL IPs constantly change every time an AOL user loads a Wiki page. Blocking AOL IPs results in the vandal not being blocked and lots of innocent other AOL users being blocked, since the ip for an AOL users semi-randomly changes every time they look at or edit a wikipedia page. THe real solution is to set a cookie for anyone in the AOL IP range, and base edits on the cookie. 207.200.116.68 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Or require AOL users to create accounts. But meantime...--Doc ask? 17:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Reinstatement request

Hi - yesterday I started creating Geography of Gosport, went off to have dinner, and then came back to find it deleted ... could you reinstate it please so that I can continue working on it? Thanks SP-KP 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (originally posted above at 20:56, 14 April 2006)

Thanks. What did you mean by "one chance"? Nice "under construction" template btw - I've not seen that before but I'll definitely be using it in future. SP-KP 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant that we don't allow non-articles in the main space. So, 'onechance' to make it at least into a stub, before someone (else) deletes it. Happy editing. --Doc ask? 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now a stub rather than a substub. I'm not sure I'm convinced you followed process here (which of the speedy deletion criteria did this meet?), but anyway, no harm done. All the best SP-KP 18:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh I followed process all right. Someone tagged your first creation as {empty}, and since it had no content whatsoever I agreed. You are not supposed to leave contentless articles in the main space. Use a sandbox in future. Anyway, as you say, you've done no any harm. --Doc ask? 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin standards?

If admins seem to constantly delete userboxes for no reason, or delete userboxes for fake reasons, then something needs to be said. It'd be one thing if this was a rare occurence, but due to the rather frequent occurence of such deletions, it's time someone stands up for what they believe in. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, stand up for what you believe in. But don't wear a big green Civility Association badge and then engage in personal attacks and incivility. I know what I call that.--Doc ask? 19:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Restore the deleted edits to Haathi Mere Saathi

I want them restored.


No edits have been removed from that article as far as I can tell. And certainyl not by me. --Doc ask? 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

It's bunny time - Happy Easter Doc! (I recommend a glass of the right stuff to help the chocolate go down). --Alf melmac 16 April 2006

Everyone else seems to have stolen all the good Easter pictures and stuff, but I wish you a Happy Easter all the same. — FireFox • T [16:21, 16 April 2006]

Hm, I'm (very) late, but since it's still Easter Monday I guess I can still wish you a happy Easter (or what's left of it ;)). Regards, --JoanneB 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your kind comment regarding my proposal in the Wikipedia Watch deletion proposal page. For the record, I have only ever used "Jonathan" related accounts. If you are interested in my real identity, then it is Jonathan David Milne of Wakefield, West Yorkshire in the United Kingdom. User: Freakofnurture however still bizarrely sees fit to accuse me of being a sock for Brandt despite the fact that my IP registers to the Yorkshire/Humberside region. If Brandt was able to identify the location of Wikipedia Users for his Hive Mind page, I'm pretty sure the same is possible for finding out the same of my IP.

Anyhow, thank you for your kindness regarding this matter. Jonathan 666 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Hint - choose an account name and stick with it. --Doc ask? 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem, my previous accounts relating to my name of Jonathan were banninated by Freakofnurture to his bizarre assertion that I was Daniel Brandt despite the evidence I presented to him which showed the contrary. Jonathan 666 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, stick to this account. If it is blocked e-mail me. Unless I see resonable evidence that you are a banned user, I will unblock you. But if you are still using multiple accounts, the offer ends. --Doc ask? 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops

I apologize. I thought it was covered under fair use because I created the image myself using elements of the GMail logo and not the logo itself. Chrisbrl88 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, problem. --Doc ask? 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User AmE-0

Seeing as Template:User AmE-0 has now survived at least two TFDs, could you please explain your recent deletion and protection of the template. This is clearly against the consensus, totaly inconsistent and at odds with your previous statement that you "will not be deleting any more userboxes...". Ian3055 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

T1 deletion are carried out where the template is 'divisive or inflammatory' they have nothing to do with TfD or consensus. As to my previous statement, I've changed my mind in the case of removign offensive material fro wikipedia. However, I did not 't1' this, it was deleted yesterday under 't1' by arbcom member User:Jdforrester, so I suggest you take it up with him. I merely deleted a subsequent recreation. Thanks. --Doc ask? 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, sorry to bring it up with you, completely forgot to look past the simple history. I'm not particularly bothered whether the template exists or not anymore, just that it is consistent with the other English dialects. Ian3055 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope that it is not consistent with other template to be so incivil to foreigners as that particular one was. --Doc ask? 22:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have added that its existance or otherwise should be consistent - I dont see any need for anything other than the text from the standard Babel boxes. Ian3055 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Note of the bable '0' boxes serve any good purpose. --Doc ask? 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I couldnt agree more, but I think it is more important that all 6 dialect '0' boxes are treated consistently. Perhaps deleating them all would be a good solution. Ian3055 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to TfD them. But I couldn't care I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not consistent, and so what? --Doc ask? 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Font Exploit article deletion

Hey there. As one of the two guys behind the PSP's font hack, I'd really like to know why the article about it was deleted. The reason you gave was "whatever", which is neither appropriate nor explanatory.

See below. --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Action of Churches Together in Scotland
William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
Karen Matheson
St Columba's Church, Glasgow
Grand Alliance
Kilarrow Parish Church
Dunblane Cathedral
Associated Presbyterian Church
Saad Zaghlul
Established Church
Ceres, Scotland
David Welsh
St Athernase Church
Scottish Education Department
St Mungos, Glasgow
Duddingston Kirk
Robin Orr Blair
William Withering
Prorogation
Cleanup
Jacob Neusner
Free Presbyterian Church
St. Andrew's Cathedral, St. Andrews
Merge
Giant's Causeway
Ayr
Cutty-sark
Add Sources
Geology of Scotland
Barclay church
Simon Hughes
Wikify
Cruise of Deception
Post Christian
Tommy Barnett
Expand
Parochial school
Pazhuvil Church
Muruta Azrael

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

note

There is a deleted edit to Haathi Mere Saathi. I want it too see its content.

I can't see any deleted edit. --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trolling

If you look at my previous User Talk page User_talk:People=Shit you'll see I was actually invited to list the article at deletion review by an administrator. Accordingly I'm going to revert your removal of the listing. Killerman 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


FONT EXPLOIT!!

For the sake of the PSP Scene please undelete that article...it is there to help others and is important, so dont go around deleting important information, please thank you.

OK, I've reversed my deletion. But since it does not appear notable, you may well find another admin will delete it, or it will be nominated viw AfD. --Doc ask? 12:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, someone has. --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Help required - unfair banning

Hi, Jonathan_666 here. I have had a case of unfair banning by NSLE, who's reasoning is "known sock/meat puppet". Yet this makes no sense. A sock/meat puppet of who? There's no notice on my user page to say that I am a sockpuppet of anyone, and despite the fact that I had made myself clear that the only user accounts I used were "Jonathan" related accounts. I haven't used any others after my current one of Jonathan_666, which I followed your advice to keep. I mean, for goodness sake, I was even given the Wikipedia Welcome by SqueakyBox despite the fact that s/he too knew that I had used Jonathan related accounts, because s/he felt I could give good contributions to Wikipedia. In edit summaries on the Daniel Brandt talk page, I have given my personal information on there. I had a pleasant conversation with Squeakybox over my proposal to merge the non personal information of the Daniel Brandt article and the 7 websites he's been involved with. I was allowed to make three AfD nominations for Google Watch, Public Information Research and Scroogle, with myself voting to merge them with Daniel Brandt article. I explained myself to Jokestress who initially thought I was acting in bad faith with the nominations, and she then retracted her comments and apologised. Heck, NSLE even participated in one of the deletion votes without any fuss.

So if there doesn't appear to have been any problems, and if it was recognised I could contribute good things to the Wikipedia, why have I suddenly been banned for alleged "sock/meat puppetry"? Of whom? Of Daniel Brandt? Well I've already covered that. My IP registers me to Yorkshire/Humberside, not Texas, so I fail to see NSLE's logic. And I fail to see anything in my contributions that may have offended NSLE. I am horribly confused about this, can you please help? Jonathan_666 86.137.179.142 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I promised I would review any block and I will - please give me some time, and avoid using any sock in the meantime. I have asked NSLE to explain his reasons to me, and if he does not give me a satisfactory reason, I will consider either unblocking this account, or posting the matter to the admins' noticeboard for a full review. If you are not a sock of a banned user, and what you say is in good faith, then I am sure we can get to the bottom of this. --Doc ask? 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You are now unblocked. But please stick to one account and watch WP:CIVIL etc, or you will find yourself blocked again. --Doc ask? 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, but for some reason despite the fact that you've unblocked me when I try to edit pages as Jonathan_666, it still says that my username or IP is blocked by NSLE for the reason of "known sock/meat puppet", despite the fact that my block log clearly shows otherwise. Can you please investigate what is happening here? Jonathan_666 86.141.141.31 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I forgot to undo the autoblocker. THat should be it now. --Doc ask? 10:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It is still not allowing me to edit as Jonathan_666. I keep being autoblocked by NSLE for using the account. But it makes no sense. I've been unblocked so why am I still getting autoblocked? The problem is that I'm using a laptop, although my IP always begins with the number 86. This is really frustrating. It is possible that only NSLE has the power to remove my block. I've sent him an email asking for help. If this continues to happen, what then? Am I going to need a new account? 86.129.32.154 09:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, AFAICT this account should be free to edit. --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Non english redirects

I have noticed/been notified that you have deleted quite a number of non-english redirect pages (a list is avalible on my talk page). I was wondering if you were willing to undelete them since it isn't in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria.

It is common practice to use redirects to link official names of the organisations, places, tv shows, games, etc to the article with the most comon english name.

--Cool CatTalk|@ 13:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the CSD, I only used the CS. These links were not even in a Latin alphabet, and, if we allowed these sort of things in every language, it would be impossible to verify that they were NPOV and not redirecting someone's name to asshole. I'd have thought that this is what interwiki links are for. I'm loathe to undelete these, but if you can point me to a discussion, I'll chip in and reluctantly undelete if that is the general consensus. Thanks. --Doc ask? 13:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I feel WP:AGF is necesary.
Redirects are fine. You can use bablefish to translate kanji into english (machine translation) if you really like. If someones name does indeed redirect from asshole that would be vandalism and would posibly be re-redirected to asshole (still does not have to be deleted).
I do not believe deleting a long list of redirects (see my talk page) is approporate due to a 'what if...' scenario. Non latin text is fine for redirects.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
To chime in, I'd say that the redirects often make sense for articles about non-English topics. The recent Olympics were held in the city of Turin (the anglicized version of the name), but we have a redirect from Torino (the local Italian form) as well. I can see a solid argument for redirects like these where the native language version of an article topic would be a probable search term.
On the other hand, we don't want or need to reduplicate all the information in interwiki links. We don't need to have redirects pointing at Turin from Турин or トリノ, because it doesn't make sense to search the English Wikipedia for an Italian city using Russian or Japanese search terms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh, never mind. Looks like there's already a thread on WP:AN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've (reluctantly) undeleted these.--Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Got it. Thanks for the heads up! Regards, --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NP --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lords of the Rhymes

The Lords of the Rhymes article you deleted because of a previous vote in '05 was completely different from the old one, and had notability/verifiability claims, which you ignored. Perle 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia Review

Hi,

I'm a little confused as to why you deleted Talk:Wikipedia Review. Your deletion log summary said "nothing helpful here," but people were just starting to discuss whether it was time to recreate the article (it had initially been deleted because the site was new and NN, but we were discussing whether it has since achieved notability). I think that that's an important discussion, and even if it ended up against recreation it would be a good record to leave on the talk page. Would you be willing to consider restoring that discussion?

Thanks. Hbackman 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered on recreated talk page. Basically I deleted it as a troll-fest. --Doc ask? 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Boca Juniors

Excuse me i didn't know it was illegal, and i didn't mean to offend you, but please the next time add a note in the talk page or something like that. Argentino 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that

As I cannot read German, I was not aware of the birth and death date issue. Best, Kukini 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your civility

Please assume good faith, and be more civil. Calling edits you don't like [2], or which don't meet your standards 'trolling' may be regarded as a personal attack. This is not a word to be thrown about lightly. Thanks, Misza13 T C 22:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Clever, but when you get caught misusing edit summaries, it is more mature to admit it and move on than to troll though my contribs in the mistaken notion that any slip of mine would invalidate my criticism of you. Can you defend your edit summary? If not, note your mistake and learn from it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Now, as to the case you dredge up, yes, I ceased to assume good faith with that user. I was possibly wrong to do so. But given that he'd previously logged in as User:People=Shit, assuming bad faith was perhaps understandable. --Doc ask? 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

I'd like you to remind you that this template has already gone through DRV and survived a TfD. The community ruled out that it was not a "bloody obvious t1". I suggest that you undelete it ASAP, so that we don't disturb the people again. Thanks, Misza13 T C 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to disturb anyone. --Doc ask? 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to retrieve the source code for anyone who feels the need to have it on their userspace, although I suspect enough people will have it subst'd for those who feel the need to find it. --Doc ask? 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at the very least, please do so, and please consider giving some kind of warning before deleting userboxes. It is disturbing to see your userpage changed without warning. About the template itself: what changed from March 1 when the template was restored, or from the VfD on March 2?
I find it ironic that (as far as I can tell) you ignored process in deleting a userbox that protests against such action. Almost confirming the need for the userbox...TheJabberwʘck 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe I upheld policy and process in deleting this. But I've set my full answers down in the DRV debate, so you can read them there. --Doc ask? 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've had high hopes for Wikipedia. Yeah, I know I'm only a newbie, not like somebody with 10000+ edits under their belt, I've only reverted a bit of vandalism and added only a bit of stuff... But I don't think it is worth anymore. What use is policy if even those that are supposed to enforce it, ignore it (from time to time). Nothing personal against you Doc glasgow, but I've seen too much uglyness here in the last few weeks. Time to call it quits. CharonX 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be a great shame. I've no doubt you could contribute much to this encyclopedia. But policy is that we are building an encyclopedia - verifiable, neutral and nothing more. Wikipedia processes serve that end and nothing more. The deletion of divisive stuff is done precidely to keep us on that policy trach. Step away for a minute, calm down, and then ask yourself: 'what is wikipedia?' 'why do I think it is important?' - the answer is 'it is an encyclopedia' and 'it is about knowledge' - focus on that and a lot of the petty stuff vanishes - and you'll find that a lot more of what happens here will make sense to you. --Doc ask? 06:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, why don't you step away for a minute, calm down and then ask yourself: 'why are they insisting on this stuff?' 'what's so important about it?' The answer is: 'they aren't mindless robots', 'they have the right to make their "workplace" look nice' (and that includes bumper stickers). However, hopefully, it won't matter soon. I have a new idea in mind and let's hope it works out. Misza13 T C 12:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm calm. You're the one jumping up and down on my userpage. As to 'rights', according to policy, you have only two rights in wikipedia: 'the right to leave and the right to fork'. --Doc ask? 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I see this "two rights" misconception spreads across Wikipedia, and, in this case, it is referred to as an official policy. There is no policy page that includes the phrase. There are other rights.  Grue  18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup, there is that. But no right to edit, no right to 'myspace', and no right to free of speech on wiki-servers, which I think are the more relevant points. --Doc ask? 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of "rights," aren't the costs (of controversial speedly deletions in particular) greater than the benefits? Maybe you are right that speedying this template was proper procedure. But even if it is, by doing so, you have alienated some users (me included) completely unnecessarily. What are the drawbacks to listing at TFD that outweigh this effect? I see virtually none, only the minor annoyance of having to wait a few more days to have the template deleted (if the community so decides). TheJabberwʘck 03:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So, now I should ignore policy, because to follow it alienates and annoys you? --Doc ask? 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, this is being discussed elsewhere. Continuing it here is pointless - this thread is now over. --Doc ask? 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Archola

Please don't read too much into the edit summary. We've had a really bad time on the Christianity and Jesus articles with users being stalked in the real world and having to leave wikipedia and Archie is a bit freaked by it all. It certainly wasn't a threat as Archie is the politest wikipedian I have ever come across. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Essjay knows all about this sorry tale and can confirm that bad things have been happening to good people. This involves external websites with cabal accusations and posting of personal information identifying editors children and letters to employers etc... As you see - not good stuff. Archie just didn't realise how what he had written could be misunderstood I'm sure.Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the situation you speak of. That's what so concerned me about Archola's edit summary. It read like he was threatening more of the same. Edit summaries are only for recording the nature of an edit, and not for making comments. Anyhow, I'll unblock him now, but uoi might press on him the need to watch his summaries. --Doc ask? 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - will do - though I expect he will be even more freaked and more careful! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Brother Template

Thanks for the heads-up. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Being agnostic about the Armenian Genocide

Hi, it seems like you t1'ed a template I created yesterday marking that I was Agnostic about the Armenian Genocide. I think it was unfair of you taking such action without discussing about it first. I created the template as I hope there are people out there, like myself, who want to know the truth of what happened however has not been satisfied with the presented evidence. I also want people to know that when I edit a page related with this touchy subject it is not necessarily to promote the Armenian or Turkish side but to promote facts with sustainable evidence. User:Mdozturk

Genocide is a serious issue, as you know. And although there can be different ideas about what it is, and when it happened, these are for serious discussion, and not for putting on bumper sitickers. That is 'inflammatory and divisive', and such templates will be speedy deleted under WP:CSD t1. Speedy deletion does not requite admins to discuss beforehand. Wikipedia is not a place to find people who 'know the truth' as you see it, it is a place for neutral editing. Thanks. --Doc ask? 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having problems understanding your reasoning. Are you saying that the subject is serious and requires serious discussion and therefore user templates about the subject are automatically inflamitory and divisive? So that means I can add templates about clowns, cute little woodland creatures, but nothing about anything more serious? Do you delete every user template about serious subjects? (i.e. User SupportTheTroops) It seems like you have an issue with user templates, or "bumper stickers" as you call them and this is clouding your judgement. The criteria of determining if a template should be deleted is by testing to see if it is 'inflammatory' and 'divisive' (as you mentioned). I agree that this criteria is correct, a racist template like 'I hate such and such ethnic group' should be deleted on sight. I don't believe that my template fits in that catagory though: how is stating that you are a person who is undecided about the issue of the Armenian Genocide inflammatory or divisive?Mdozturk 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means declare your views on your userpage, you don't need a template to do that. I'm not trying to censor you. However, genocide, which raises strong opinions is not a matter for trivialising in a userbox. That is liable to enflame those who we doubtless object to your opinions (or lack of them). Look, create the damn box in your userspace, and no-one will have any problems. I'll undelete it an move it into your userspace if you want, as long as you undertake not to recreate in in the template space. --Doc ask? 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
How would you feel about wikipedia hosting an official userbox template which said:
This user affirms the fact of the Armenian Genocide.


Would that increase your confidence of being able to worki with the creator in a neutral way towards a fair encyclopedia? --Doc ask? 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait...

Nightstallion reverted me, too, rollbacking. You should talk to Nightstallion too. SushiGeek 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)