User talk:Doc glasgow/May 07

Why the massive editing of the UCDSU article?

See our policy on living people. ALL negative material that might comment on people MUST be referenced from reliable sources and written in a strictly neutral manner - that whole section was not.--Doc^g 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

My contributions to the Roy Oldham Wiki page were deleted. They were cited sources.

Read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and please sign your posts.--Doc^g 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Doc^g 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Aspen Achievement Academy

Steel359 replaced "student" and "detainee" with "adolecents", which in fact was the same I did when you reversed it march 28. Is there separate rules for users?

Covergaard 09:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a POV pusher with some conflict of interests, so yes.--Doc^g 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smear campaign against Angus MacNeil MP

Please take a look at the blatant POV drivel being presented over at Angus MacNeil. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer, and this is a clear breach of WP:BLP. --Mais oui! 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done--Doc^g 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for quick and effective actions against vandal Linda Elena Mack. Armatura 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Doc^g 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, can you please give me a couple of tips for acting against vandal? I know, there are a lot of manuals about it on Wiki, but I'd like to listen advice from experienced user: what should I do (except reverts), when I see some user vandalizes a lot of pages in a short time? Am I (as a common user without any special status) able to block him/her? Thank you in advance. Regards, Armatura 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Linda Elena Mack

Just read your message on my talk page about tags and stuff. Alex 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok --Doc^g 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megachurches DRV

Hi Doc,

I left the following comment for you in response to your concerns.

Closer's note I wouldn't worry, Doc. Closer's opinions on actions secondary to the "keep/delete" binary are always open to reversal through normal editorial processes. I mean, editors should be careful in altering those; but, WP:BOLD permits it, subject to talk page consensus.

In other words, merges, redirects, etc. can be undone by anyone who has a good reason, unless there is an objection raised thereafter; in which case, editors take the matter to the article's talk. This is the interpretation of AfD jurisdiction I learned from Splash, anyway. It's ironic that this view is more flexible/IAR-like than the one you espoused! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me in the right direction please?

There is an ongoing debate over at Richard Gere about a particularly nasty rumour that sprung up almost 15 years ago involving Gere and gerbils. I went through and cleaned up the talk page a bit, but there seems to be a persistent desire to include at least a paragraph talking about this rumour, even if it is just to say that it exists. Needless to say, I disagree vehemently - rumours have no place in encyclopedia articles unless it can be shown by reliable sources that the rumour had an impact on career or life. In Gere's case, there has been no impact. Any suggestions on where I can go to get some support on this issue? Is there a project somewhere that gives advice on how to best manage these situations? Risker 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP proposal

Doc, would you care to comment on this proposal? It wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help, and it's very straightforward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Forrester

Hello. Your recent removal of the Neil Forrester article with a redirect to The Real World was not acceptable. If you feel that the article is worthy of deletion, you should have put it through a nomination process. Your removal actually caught the eye of Forrester himself, who has the decency and respect for Wikipedia not to edit his own article. I am restoring the original article as it existed BEFORE the vandalism, which is what YOU should have done in the first place. You seem like an experienced Wikipedian, so I can't fathom why you took these actions. Midnightguinea 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as to how deletion operates in Wikipedia. I took a simple editorial decision that Neil Forester was not, in my opinion, notable enough for an article and so I redirected it to the one thing which he seems notable for, and which already contains his mini-bio. That isn't deletion, and no I don't need to go through a deletion procedure. It isn't deletion, precisely because any editor is entitled to reverse me, just as you have. Please assume good faith, and please ask for explanations rather than rush here with accusations of improper behaviour.--Doc^g 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism notice.

Hello,

An IP address that you blocked over six months ago – 168.9.116.17 – has recently become active again, and has been adding unconstructive edits to the encyclopaedia. Please re-assess the situation at your earliest convenience. Thanks. --Aarktica 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for another six months.--Doc^g 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Appeal to Captain Cannabis deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Captain Cannabis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Verne Andru 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel

Would'nt "No Consensus" have been more appropriate? -- Avi 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc glasgow. Actually, you appear to have inadvertently made an error on that AfD. Looking through the discussion, there's a clear consensus for deletion, with a recommendation for a merge. I've entered the actual final outcome, and deleted the article. Just thought I'd let you know. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you just reverted Doc's action without discussion? --Iamunknown 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Doc, concurrent threads at Jayjg's talk page and at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc. Regarding the points you made on my Talk: page:

You're right, and I've apologized at Deletion Review.
Again, a good point.
For better or worse, wheel-warring is actually the repeated undoing of an administrative action; I've actually pushed hard more than once to get the definition to mean the very first undoing of an admin action was a "wheel-war", but I've never been able get any agreement on that. So based on Wikipedia's definition, the only person Wheel warring here was Gaillamh - although he could claim he wasn't wheel warring also, on a technicality: I didn't actually reverse any admin actions you took, but reversed an edit you made to a page. One does not need to be an admin to close AfDs. I took the first admin action, by deleting the page, and Gaillamh took the second admin action, when he undid that deletion.
Agreed, as I've said at Deletion Review.
Actually, no, as I've explained at Deletion Review. An interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted at 1+2 and 4. 3. You are correct - but reversing afd's without discussion isn't great. 5. Perception also matters. Anyway, thanks and case closed.--Doc^g 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States military aid to Israel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted.--Doc^g 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Just wondered why you have blanked the talk page? Frelke 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is old news, and the details are still available in the history. I can e-mail you more information if you need to know, do you?--Doc^g 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name redacted

I was wondering if I could ask a favor. A few months ago, as a new user to wikipedia, I engaged in some silliness involving a school friend of mine--name redacted. I have since learned my lesson and have no plans of rehashing this behavior. The problem is that you protected a redirect page I created -- name redacted -- from recreation. I can assure you that I have no interest at this point in recreating this page or a redirect from it. The problem is that this page comes up first when a google search is run for nameredacted's name, which angers him because he is concerned it might interfere with professional prospects. A couple months ago, I removed name redacted's name from some other wikipedia silliness I was responsible for and that material no longer dominates a google search for his name. I was wondering if you would be willing to allow the Jname redacted page to be completely deleted (that is, unprotect it from re-creation, as there is simply no need for this protection since I have changed my ways) so that it eventually wont be picked up by google. Also, I am assuming that it will be OK for me to edit this comment to remove name redacted's name when you have responded so that the same google problem does not arise with this talk page. Thanks. NEME REDACTED 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like another administrator (Cbrown1023) deleted the page about a week ago. I see that it still shows up in a Google search, but that is just because Google lags behind page creation for a little while. In a few days or week the page should be gone. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I'd have been happy to help you and to delete the protected page that was showing up in google, but it has already been done. Much joy over one sinner that repenteth.--Doc^g 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Oh dear, oh dear ... between enabling trivial querulousness and pointless circumlocution, I guess I've really had a bad wiki-day. I thought that I was trying to help resolve a situation, but silly me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"querulousness"? Now, I'll need to look that up in a real encyclopedia ;) --Doc^g 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Mr. Gerard who used the word. Honestly, I thought I was helping. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. But by refusing to name the admin, you just made me curious. Gerard is a walking dictionary of put down lines.--Doc^g 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of editors seem to be walking dictionaries of put-down lines recently. I suppose I can handle being gratuitously put down (not by you) as a response to my trying to defuse a situation, since on balance I've been treated very gently in my months here; but there are others who may not react the same way, and I hope you can use any influence you may have with such editors to moderate the tone of some of their comments. Certain people (not yourself) should bear in mind that civility is for everyone. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but not everyone sees civility in the same way as you or me. It is a little relative. It is a lot easier to ask people to walk away from things than to enforce some sort of agreed civility line. Kelly has a reputation for being tetchy, anyone that's been around long enough to be an admin knows that. To jump into the lion's den to ask them to tone it down is just silly - you will get your head bitten off. And what are you hoping to achieve? Admins will get stick, maybe that's wrong, but if they can't take it, they will fail as admins. Moreover, if they have thin skins, and go looking for confrontation....well, then I have little sympathy. I have some (non-wikipedian) friends (yes, really) who are downright rude. I have a choice, I roll my eyes and ignore their rudeness or I give them a wide berth. Could I talk to Kelly? Yes. Will it make any difference? No. --Doc^g 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny....

This is funny. Real96 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Right back to you :)

This is clearly the best use of IAR ever, and well-deserved for you! :) Xoloz 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm beaten to the punch. Thanks! >Radiant< 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template removal

Mr Glasgow, sir, when did the reasons you provided suddenly become enough to remove such templates from articles? Such templates exist on tens of thousands of articles on wikipedia, and are continually being added, and in all these the same reasoning could be used if anyone so wished. These templates are wonderful! It's great that wikipedia has users who like to start revolutions on wikipedia on small articles about Glasgow bishops, but in this case I cannot understand it. Why d'you want them out?. There are alternative places to get the information? Great! Never heard that argument on an English monarch page, a pope, a US President, etc, etc. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can I ask why you have removed my edits to Roy Oldham as they are clearly documented by local press.

Regards,

LB

Cos we respect neutrality here - and collecting a bnunch of negative material from newspapers isn't it.--Doc^g 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

A gentle suggestion. I suppose you're probably aware that your sig points to a deleted page, but I suggest it would be helpful to (avoid confusing) newbies if it didn't... Cheers, --Dweller 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't.--Doc^g 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Not any more! :-) --Dweller 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Garside

Hi, Doc,

A cap has been put on any editing changes to the Robert Garside entry, and I would be grateful if you could resolve this dispute.

The entry states that Garside was acknowledged by the Guinness Book of Records as the first person to run round the world. This is true. But it is also true that Garside made headline news in Britain in 2001 when it was revealed that he had faked a large part of his run three years earlier, and his award has been criticized by ultrarunning officials and statisticians.

I previously added this to the Garside entry and sourced a number of reputable publications, including Sports Illustrated, National Geographic Adventure, The Independent, The Guardian, the Express on Sunday and others. Yet these additions are being repeatedly deleted.

In the discussion page I have asked the person responsible for the deletions to discuss this so that we can arrive at an entry that acknowledges both the award and the controversy. I have had no response.

I see no reason why we are left with a very one-dimensional view of the Garside story. I think the simplest solution is to do what you did with the Ben Johnson entry -- have Garside's achievements and award in the main body of the story, but have a seperate entry below, alluding to the scandal.

Thanks, (Houndog50 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not getting drawn into the content issues here. All I see is two users edit warring. If you can't get a discussion and compromise then use the dispute resolution mechanisms. However, given this is a biography of a living person, when in doubt we leave controversial material out.--Doc^g 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since I can’t get the other party to discuss this I suggest I cool off for a week or so and come up with edit changes that you deem acceptable and see if that is also acceptable to the other party. As it stands, the story is erroneous, but the sourced material which shows it to be erronoeus is being deliberately deleted. I thought I was following Wikipedia guidelines on this, and everything I wrote was sourced in numerous reputable publications. (Houndog50 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your RfA questions

Hi, Doc. Thanks for posting those questions on the RfA; they were fun to answer. Looking over what I wrote, I now realize I wrote the answer more for the crowd than for you personally, so I put in bits that from your perspective might look like me belaboring something. If it comes across that way, no offense was meant. I also tried to find some balance between being complete and keeping it short enough to be readable. I know the issues are important to you, so if you want to discuss them in more detail, I'm game. Thanks, William Pietri 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need specific answers for me. Just answer the question as you wish and that'll do fine for me.--Doc^g 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal (Dog)

Hi there

I would like to reaffirm that I am the sole author of this "Endal(dog)" article, the content is taken from our personal profile which explains our history and partnership. I have updated the Wikipedia article to include publications/books that feature Endal and external media (still being added to) and also an unique insight into Endal's health problems which he has worked through for 10 years. Hopefully this makes the Wikipedia article unique. Endal has been in the public for ten years, not a week goes by when there is not an article in some magazine or newspaper telling Endal's story or his recent achievements, so in the various article there must be a close similarity in content

The article to which you refered actually states at the bottom that the article is written by me

I do hope this allays any copyright infringement issues that you may have.

reagards Endal and Allen 07:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright (c) Allen G Parton. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

First of all - you'll need to add the GNU release to your website. Posting here is no good as we can't verify your identity. Secondly, we don't run 'stories' but encyclopedia articles - and that piece of your isn't encyclopedic in tone - it would need a total rewite if it meets our inclusion requirements.--Doc^g 09:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal dog

Hi there

I am working on the tone of the article, if you read my discussion page you will see that because of my head injury I have had to learn to read and write all over again. I will achieve but please allow me time to reach the standards required, I believe that being part of this project is open to all regardless of disabilty/abilty.

What though is in question here is the authenticity of the article being mine!!! The reason you blocked the article? www.endal.co.uk our website, nearly ten years old, historic and current should go a long way to prove the wording of the Wikipedia article and it's source

warmest regards Endal and Allen 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem here is not the website. It is that you need to authenticate its release under the GFDL. You can't do that by posting here, since we can't know that the person posting here is the owner of the website. You could be anyone.--Doc^g 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh this is all a steep learning curve! I have amended the article with the copyright and now to make the content fit the sites definition, so "watch this space". Thank you for you help and advise

Endal and Allen 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal (dog)

I am at a total loss here as to what the issue now is. There is a picture of me and Endal, there is information and links that refer directly to us both in media and books. The web site you originally quoted as a duplicate source copyright issue is Endal and my own bio!!!! The only thing left for me to do is send you a copy of my passport and Endal too to prove it us. I have stated quite clearly the content of the article is mine and my words.

some links to feast on

Endal and Allen 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal (Dog)

thank you for the update, your actions have motivated so many to comment. An article about Endal appears in the (UK) Sunday Star's supplement Take Five this weekend (not everyones paper but I am hoping the article gives an insight in to Endal's fame. We are currently half way through producing a movie about Endal, maybe when it is released the end will justify the means! take care Endal and Allen 19:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateI have emailed wikipedia Uk with the source documentation as required and statement of authentication. I hope this will satisfy the requirements?

Endal and Allen 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Released under the GNU Free Documentation License added to bottom of the article at Helium, http://www.helium.com/user/show/21725, as you requested/suggested hope this makes things easier, at least a start in proving authenticity Endal and Allen 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état

Thank you for your comments about Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état. Just to clarify : at NO time did I do a cut-and-past page move. It was an article SPLIT, not a move. Splitting longer articles into smaller ones has long been accepted on Wikipedia, and this is the first time I've heard of it being called a copyright violation. FYI, most if not all of the text I copied from one article to another was written by me personally. I realize that I should have been more careful with the edit summary, though: I should have clarified that the page was being split, not moved, as my somewhat inept rendering made it appear. I'll be more careful in future. David Cannon 12:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry if I was harsh. Splitting is fine. You just need to do it with an edit summary of "split from article x" so that anyone can trace the contributions history for the material. Sorry if I over reacted. Perhaps you could post a note to the talk page of any article you've done this with, to say where the material came from.--Doc^g 12:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. I've also taken the liberty of restoring Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000. I'll put a note on the talk pages of both articles to identify the source from which they were split. Over the next few days, I'll also go through the articles I've written, find any similarly unexplained splits, and fix the problem. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. You don't need to apologise for being harsh - I was the one who did a sloppy job in the first place, so it's my responsibility to take care of the problem now. David Cannon 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Doc^g 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 5#Air Force Amy

Peace, doc. All's well that ends well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, taking that to DRV was not one of my better moves anyway. Thanks.--Doc^g 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pft, don't be THAT hard on yourself. Kudos to you for getting the extra input rather than just acting. People could stand to learn from you. Hell, I could stand to learn from you on that note. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Username block?

I blocked the username for being promotional for Reachout trust (it was a spam username and created a now speedied article on itself). Does that clarify things? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, creating an article about your organisation isn't ground for blocking - certainly not without warning. Don't do that please.--Doc^g 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block for the creation for the creation of the article, I blocked for it being a promotional username, I haven't got any major issues with you unblocking it if you wish, I just haven't got the internet connection to do it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a promotional username. It is just a corporate one. Is there a policy against that? It is better that someone is honest enough to tell us the organisation they are representing. I still see no justification for blocking here. There is no basis for this.--Doc^g 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:U#PROMOTIONAL: That seams to justify the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But common sense doesn't. Unless a username is offensive, or it is a vandal, try talking to our users before you block them. WP:AGF and the principle of warning first is better.--Doc^g 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you there, policy states that blantant infringements can be blocked on sight, this is a blatant infringement - the policy is quite clear, I would talk to the user first if I felt there was a chance the username wasn't against policy. Upon reflection, I am disapointed that you unblocked the username given that I have showed you the specific part of policy that it broke, especially with what you put in the block log, no reason to block this. ID confirmed by OTRS anyway - so what if they confirmed who they are? It's still promotional and still against WP:U. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this on WP:AN, you may wish to comment there. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've responded. We can both see what the consensus view is. No need to fall out. Cheers.--Doc^g 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input, I guess it seams we were both right, sorry if you think I was being confrontational, I just felt strongly about the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lampley

Did you know that, in addition to his sportscasting duties, Lampley is an outspoken liberal commentator? That the judge was the daughter of a GOP kingpin, Gerry Parsky? Of course, domestic violence charges are a serious matter and need to be investigated thoroughly; however, the investigation show there was no evidence of the allegations in this case. Even Mr Lampley's former wife, Bree Walker publicy stated that he was not capable of the charges that Ms Sanders brought.

That the apartment the complaining party was living in was not hers, it was his....although all news accounts say it was hers.

That the DA dismissed the case and investigation due to lack of evidence.

That the only thing Lampley was guilty of was 'coming within 100 yards of his own apartment' by having a meeting with his property manager.

If you'd like to contact his attorney for the facts, his name is Thomas Warwick in San Diego. Perhaps he can provide the court papers and what the facts showed re: the no contest plea.

Mr Lampley could not factually dispute that he was technically within 100 yards of his own apartment the day he was meeting with his property manager. The investigators, on the property to interview the complaining party, noticed Mr Lampley leaving the mgr's office and arrested him at that time.

The complaining party also was driving Mr Lampley's BMW until the proceedings concluded. We live in a litigious society and anyone can charge another party with a variety of claims. Your treatment of highlighting the charges and not of the ultimate disposition is not totally fair, despite whatever take you get from the media. The print media in San Diego is definitely skewed right. The north county of San Diego is generally a very conservative climate, where the charges were brought and where the court was located. There is much more to this story than the sensational headlines.

Noted--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

Good work, Doc glasgow, thanks for blocking the IP address that was spamming the key!

Hopefully these spammers/trolls/troublemakers will move onto something else other than an encryption key... you're doing a good job stopping them!

Over on the Cornish Wiktionary, where I'm the only sysop there, I've already had to protect the page from re-creation, and list it at protected titles. One page even listed the key and John Bambenek's email address - I'm about to nuke that protect-deleted page and turn it into a protected title there.

It's getting annoying having to delete this junk, but it's a fad that will soon fade away. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Doc glasgow. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Raban

Can you explain why you removed the quote about Jonathan Raban's failing at Salisbury Rep and returning to the University of Hull to do his PhD thesis. This was relevant and I see no reason for its deletion as it is relevant to his biography Ivankinsman 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also ask why you have removed the quote about Raban's family. If you had bothered to read any of his books (and I know you havn't otherwise you wouldn't have done this) you would see that this quote is central to much of his writing. I cannot see any rationale for its deletion so please can you reinsert it Ivankinsman 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and NPOV

I have added some wording related to the application of NPOV to lists, and there is a vigorous debate ensuing. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#The_difficulty_with_Lists_in_WP_needs_to_be_addressed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I'll take a look--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Merge Accounts

Thanks for the help with the money merge account. Eddie Jones 02:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP --Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion etiquette

Would it be impolite of me to ask if you are considering responding to the points I raised here and here? I don't mind if you don't, but I saw you were around and editing the AfD, so I thought I might as well ask. Carcharoth 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. Carcharoth 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate censorship

No offense was intended by my closure, so I hope you did not take it the wrong way -- it is difficult to read people online at times. Ironically, I based my phrasing on an earlier discussion you closed which was under similar circumstances (although you may disagree). My feelings on the article are neutral, meaning I can see both sides of the argument, but I do feel that the rewrite by Uncle G was so drastically different that the discussion needed a rebooting so to speak. If you have any other questions please leave me a note on my talk page. RFerreira 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new afd is showing where the community is with this (unfortunately)--Doc^g 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bored? - want to help?

I wonder if Mrs Arbuthnot [1] knew Lady Blanche Addle, I suspect they may have been great friends - same era you see. Lady Addle incidentally had a sister Millicent, Duchess of Brisket interesting woman, I wonder if you would be inclined to help me with a collaboration on her. Giano 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth here. I downloaded the blasted thing, which is basically an early twentieth-century equivalent of a collection of Wikipedia vanity articles. it is dedicated "to M. E. A. and all the younger members of the clan, in the hope and belief that they will one day read the history of their family".....I think it's time I went looking for some obscure Jacobite to write about.--Doc^g 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree, I tried to download, and had to restart the computer after 20 minutes. Try and find a 2nd hand copy of "Lady Addle Remembers" though it helps to put these things into perspective. Giano 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are [2] only 50 pence too. Giano 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So have you been a masochist for long? Giano 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a dick. Gotcha now :) --Doc^g 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you lot think I'm too strident, perhaps sometimes I am but I did not make this edit [3] lightly. All very sad, isn't it. Giano 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick High School

I would like to protest the Deletion of the Brunswick High School Web Page... I Wrote many of the articles on it. The reason for deletion was basically that we had no sources... but it was a school page... there was nothing on it that was on the Brunswick High School Official website as that would have been redundant, and so anything that was on it was there for the first time on the internet. There are no books written about our school, there are just students that know what is going on and students that don't. Again I would like to protest the deletion of the Brunswick High School, Maine wiki article.

I would like to also point out in my argument for the un-deleting of the Brunswick High School Page that I, A student at Brunswick High, do not know who kept changing the article "Announcements" to include that. They also did not know anything about the school as they kept editing articles and giving mis-information.

The article was deleted because there was a lot of personal attacks in the history, and we'd had a complaint. However, Wikipedia only allows information that is verifiable using reliable sources. We are not a notice board. So information that isn't on the school's webpage - or available in another acce3ssable source is not allowed.--Doc^g 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check mail!

Me being a dick

Sorry for taking things personally regarding your comment, I've just had a real crappy day at work - should probably consider not bringing it on wiki in the future. My ego's taken a battering during my tantrum, so I think I'll spend the rest of the night nursing it back together. Hope there's no hard feelings. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, none. I find drinking whisky and staying away from keyboards is the best cure for stress.--Doc^g 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs, it is a poor fat kid on the internet. Could you not leave it alone and use your obvious talents to add useful content? Knock it off. This is why I hate the DRV farce - full of people who love to pick fights over saving horrible articles on total crap.--Doc^g 01:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you revert the edit at Pac-Man Carnival? The user just added infoboxneeded: which the article clearly needs. RobJ1981 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits by an unauthorised bot are being reverted. Articles do not NEED infoboxes. And such editorial comment should certainly not be on the article itself.--Doc^g 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the infobox needed tag needs to be fixed then: as they state (when placed on a talk page): This infobox needed banner is misplaced. This banner should be removed from this talk page and moved to the top of article, so that users will quickly respond and fix the page. It's been like that for a bit, and no one seemed to even notice. Personally, either way is fine for me... as I don't think it actually helps it's on the article itself much more compared to the talk. --RobJ1981 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT fine to add editorial stuff to articles with a bot.--Doc^g 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted my bot's edits?

It was recently decided to have the infoboxneeded tag be moved from talk pages onto the articles themselves, this was the sole purpose of my bot, which is why I'm not sure its edits were reverted. There is no easy way for me to fix this becaue you didn't add the infoboxneeded tags back to the talk page. --Android Mouse 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The bot was unauthorised (unless I'm wrong) 2) editorial comments do not go on articles - articles are for readers 3) Nothing NEEDS an infobox - that's a stylistic decision for those working on an article - no more.--Doc^g 02:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was authorized. 2) This is a recent change discussed on the WP:VP. If you are not going to revert your reverts at least go through fully with your reverts as now the tag has been completly removed since you didn't revert my bot's removal of the tag on the talk pages. --Android Mouse 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to undo the rest you can. I've been working by hand so I'm not interested in doing more than I have to. My concern was to get these off the articles. Personally, I hate them totally, so their loss from the talk page is a gain too. Nothing needs an infobox - that's a decision for those working on an article.--Doc^g 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for you to that automatically? I had assumed your revisions weren't being done by hand. Regardless I'm not sure there is a consensus for them being removed completly, much less being removed from the main page. I personally think this should have been discussed before you started reverting. --Android Mouse 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equerry

Bryan Godfrey-Faussett - I was rather thinking of people like that Giano 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Equerry. In fact - I've done that.--Doc^g 14:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources, how would you know he was an equerry? This isn't my field, but a brief search shows that his diaries and papers are registered in the National Archives and there is an online biography on a Cambridge University site. Apparently the papers themselves are held in the Churchill Archives Centre. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to seeing the page improved Tony - well found and good luck Giano 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I think we need to take each of these characters on a case-by-case. If they don't seem to justify an article, then redirection is better than deletion, as it allows someone to come, reverse it, and fill in the gaps at a later time.--Doc^g 14:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree, but I don't think I am brave enough to do it! Giano 14:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attic

In the light of the criticisms raised at the proposed Wikipedia:Soft deletion process, I have originally proposed a "Requests for viewing" process, which would run similarly to deletion review or articles for deletion. Then, Lambiam suggested that the articles for viewing should be placed on the subpage of the project, in which the community can improve the article. If the ideas were fused, it would compensate most (if not all) of the problems faced at Wikipedia:Soft deletion already. I'm wondering on your opinion on the matter... Sr 13 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot (yet again)

I don't know if this has ever happened before, I wonder would it be not posible for a group of (say) three reputable and respected admins to be appointed to just go through this category and delete as necessary - maintain the Encyclopedia's reputation and save a lot of needless arguing and time? Giano 09:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a good idea - but you'll have 26 pages of discussions and 'OMG anti-consensus elitist cabal!' screaming knee-jerks. How many articles are we talking about? Can't we prod half of them if kittybrewster has indeed bugged off?--Doc^g 09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this unreferenced one Hugh James Arbuthnott - I have just tried to give it some refs but not easy - if he was thrice an ambassador he would have been knighted and probably still alive, I just did a quick (admitedly) google and one hit as Mr Hugh Arbuthnot tried to sell me a Toshiba microwave and nearly crashed the computer, and one hit here as [4] as CMG which is a diplomatic honnour, but not easily verifiable is it? The others are kittybresters various sites. Giano 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to have been ambasador to Romania in the 1980's [5]. I suspect there's some people interested in diplomats who might have a view. I'm also looking at Felicity Arbuthnot, who despite the 'spin' looks like a nn freelance journalist.--Doc^g 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked at her and I agree with you but decided to start with the more obvious first, I have just done two more for deletion here:

I'm getting quite fast at nominating now, I had never nominated anything efore I met the Arbuthnot family. Now there is a book I would like to read! from here [6] R. Srinivasan (2005). The Fall of Arbuthnot & Co. East West Books (Madras). ISBN 81-88661-40-6. Giano 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but hold on. You normally have to do something notable to get raised to the peerage. I;m wondering about that first earl?--Doc^g 10:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Misead that. It just says "1st of Elderslie" - I read in earl. What does "1st of Elderslie" mean anyway?--Doc^g 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict: I was about to make a wisecrack pointing that out it means I could call myself Giano MZ, 1st of London cos I'm the first of the illustrious and noble MZs to live here. Giano 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Irish humour, we could have a page on you Doc [7] if that is true. Giano 10:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct tag for this page Arbuthnot family which only has circular referencing. I'm leaving this subject to others now (for a while at least) as I cannot believe there is no wikipedia rule to stop such rubbish appearing and making the site appear foolish. There is talk on Category talk:Arbuthnot family about renaiming the category - as it includes a road, a paddle steamer, and a schooner which even allowing for odd relations is strange. I think this is vainglorious vulgarity on the part of the primary author, as you know a lot of things on wikipedia have irritated me - this business is justy ridiculous. Giano 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now put the correct tag on the article.--Doc^g 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I notice you're not adding the template on the AFD page that links back to the AFD log. It needs this to work properly. I've corrected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Arbuthnot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbuthnot family. Tearlach 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea what you mean. I'm doing afd's the way I've always done them (for over 2 years) and the way my monobook is set to do them.--Doc^g 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the templates have been very elaborately reworked over the past couple of years. I've also ignored them on the grounds that the way I've always done it still works fine. --Tony Sidaway 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - to the extent that I didn't realise it wasn't mandatory. But doing it that way does remove a useful function: the direct link back to the entry on the AFD log. Tearlach 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back key on the browser works for me. If people want to add other things, fine. But I see no need for myself.--Doc^g 11:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's all right then. Stuff the convenience to other editors. Tearlach 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more convenient to everyone to keep things simple (KISS) and avoid instruction creep. Unnecessary processes and people going around telling folk off for getting them wrong is far more off putting to new users than having to press 'back' on a browser. On principle I will resist such needless procedures. If others wish to use them, that's fine.--Doc^g 11:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there is a reason for the links. I don't give a stuff about the "View log" link, but the "edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs" bit is, in my opinion, important. It reminds people to take the time to look at the edit history of an article (in case it has been vandalised into a state that was nominated for AfD), look through the "what links here" list, look at the talk page, and check the logs (to see if it has been recreated after an earlier deletion), before adding their comment. Hopefully, the nominator, or the first few people to comment will have carried out such checks, but the links should be there as a useful reminder and convenient links for those wiching to investigate further. Carcharoth 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are useful. But there is no 'should' about it.--Doc^g 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I tend to agree. Getting the balance right between anarchy and bureaucracy is difficult. Carcharoth 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a well brought up wikipedian I have been adding the template, but only by copying and pasting the one above which has somehow put one of the dreaded Arbuthnots into a "media and music AFD" category, and I'm not sure how to get it out, so I left it and hoped no one would notice. It does just seem one more complication in an already complicated life - of course everyone always has a gleeful look (to see if it is anyone one knows) at the history no need of a template for that Giano 14:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now that I agree with. I've never bothered categorising AfDs. Someone else can tidy that up if they want to. Carcharoth 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more details on Mr. Lauder's reason for keeping, see here. For some strange reason I've never been able to fathom out, he always votes keep for Arbuthnots.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've stumbled into the wrong section... :-) Carcharoth 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's to do with the Arbuthnot family AfD, it seemed as good as anywhere else. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I wandered into sco WP for the first time to see if there were any Arbuthnots, and I see there aren't. I take it you don't find them worth the copying over (smile)DGG 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Christ it's laugh or cry Clan Arbuthnott there's more of them, I had not seen this one. Giano 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks OK in terms of its existence - we have many such articles.--Doc^g 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that one is fine, I was just wondering how many mutations of the Arbuthnots there were. Giano 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to ask about this. There is clearly at least one old Arbuthnot family of some significance (and then some other Arbuthnots of uncertain relationship), but does this "clan" actually have any real historical existence? I find this AFDing backwards. I have left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbuthnot family. Pharamond 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, few clans do. Walter Scott invented most of them. However, if there's enough international interest and clan-cruft creates since, they are still probably notable.--Doc^g 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand we have a land-owning family documented since the Middle Ages and with the main branch holding a viscountcy since 1655, and a couple of junior branches holding baronetcies, and including a number of individuals with articles of their own.

On the other hand we have a "clan" created (as far as I can understand) through some member of that same family trademarking a certain chequered textile pattern in 1962.

I don't really understand why the former is not worthy of an article and the latter is. Neither article is very good at present (and that is an understatement), but while I think an article on the family may be of real historical interest, the article on the "clan" is most likely to appeal to the kind of people who end up paying money to some Buy-Your-Family-Crest-and-Tartan webshop. Pharamond 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clans are mainly naff - but they are notable 'as a clan' -i.e. there will be people who have written about them - given them a corporate tartan and thus the clan 'exists' in records as an entity - the clan includes all arbuthnotts. Since we include notable fictions in wikipedia - even a commercially created clan identity can also be included. The family, however, is connected only by genetics - there is not corporate existence in the secondary literature. Giving it a corporate existence in wikipedia thus constitutes our original research.--Doc^g 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Arbuthnot (artillery officer)

Many guys in the army where given a higher rank postoumously (sp?) or after they retired. That could be what happened in this situation.--Vintagekits 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. But again our speculation here demonstrates the problem of sources.--Doc^g 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt disagree with that.--Vintagekits 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate infobox page

As a fellow connoisseur of the biobox, I thought you might appreciate this page [8] (that's the current version but I've given that link just in case someone changes it in the mean time). --Folantin 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty people

I was still busy replying to you on the talk page. :-)

This is pretty similar to the set of steps I went through with Eagle101 earlier. Strictly speaking, I should close this MFD. I'm mostly keeping it open out of courtesy, but I am actually doing so in violation of several policies. If folks make it hard for me, I'll have to close, or get another admin to close for me. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking you should no no such thing - and I'd instantly reverse you. Process isn't god and lots of people are expressing a view here. Don't stop that. And don't imply a minority can go off and ignore that result. See the talk page of the MfD for further.--Doc^g 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, as I do agree that we don't want to start a precedent for the abandonment of policy to be discussed at MfD, I have moved the present discussion to a subpage of WP:RFC/POLICY. That way comments are preserved as part of an active discussion, but no longer under the MfD umbrella. WjBscribe 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a 'Policies and processes for rejection' page. However, I object to the closing of the MfD - there is no consensus for it and MfD has been used int he past - policy is as we do, nothing more.--Doc^g 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on

Can I interest you in Category:Rouge admins? Guy (Help!) 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waaay beyond rouge ;) --Doc^g 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler edit

I do not consider your blanking of {{spoiler}} to be in good faith under the curent circumstances. i have opend a thread on it at WP:AN/I#More spoiler nonssense. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try assuming good faith - I find it helps--Doc^g 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. You blanked a much used tempalte, knowing full well that many people favor its use, that it recently survived a TfD (which was a "speedy keep") and there there is a general policy discussion oh whether, when, and how to sue it now in progress. This is an attempt to forestall that discussion and bypass the formation of consensus, or it looks like one to me. The funny think is, i wouldn't be suprise if the eventual consensus favors restricting if not eliminating the use of spoiler tags, but this is not the way to get ther, it iu IMO all too likely to backfire. WP:AGF does not require assuming good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained by actions on ANI and the template talk. It helps not to assume someone's motives without asking them first. But you obviously don't think it is worth doing that. I ask you again to assume good faith - at least until you've asked me what I'm about.--Doc^g 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Doc, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :) This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end spoiler templtale

why did you delete the endspoiler template. Gman124 00:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't.--Doc^g 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped the gun

I guess it's kind of hypocritical of me to have gotten mad at people last night for jumping to conclusions, then for me to just go and do that to you. It's kind of hard to get out of "defense mode", but I apologies. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. At least you've got the good grace to admit it. I admire that.--Doc^g 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My /images page.

I'm unsure how it's "clearly" a breach of our image policies, and it doesn't really "promote" my images... the only link to the page is from my own user page, and there only in reference to the manner in which I license my photographs. Regardless, it's "helpful" in that it's an easy way of me keeping track of my contributions to the Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, after accusing me of a clear breach of policy and promoting my images, you decide not to respond when I challenge your assertions? Classy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I apologise. I took some time to reconsider my comments in light of your response, rather then responding immediately. I got sidetracked. Having reviewed it, I'm satisfied by your response and see nothing wrong with what you are doing. Thanks for responding, and sorry to have wasted your time.--Doc^g 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Sorry for being so confrontational, but this whole "Non-free image use policy" issue has raised a few hackles. I overreacted a bit. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that dude

Don't threaten bans on other users, regarding the spoilers, 'cause he's just going to threaten you back and I'd feel a strong compulsion to ban both of you if it turned into edit warring. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I didn't threaten to ban anyone. I warned an edit-warring troll that he'd be blocked - which he has now been. He was putting a spoiler of bloody Sleeping Beauty. Don't come here threatening to 'ban' me - you have absolutely no authority to do that anyway.--Doc^g 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A ban is when no admin is willing to unblock, I assure you that is not the case with Doc. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you keep a civil head, Doc- if you violate Wikipedia policy I certainly have the "authority" to block you; it's called being an admin. I'm sorry if I did not choose the correct diction for you, but yelling 'WTF' is not a way to endear yourself to other editors. Thank you.

P.S., blocking that IP will ultimately do little, as the editor in question has a dynamic IP. Just so you know, he'll be back. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A block is not the same thing as a ban. From the official banning policy: "Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. Blocks are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, physically prevent the user from editing any page." In order to ban somebody, you have to get complete consensus amongst administrators that they should be blocked from editing. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "WTF" was an appropriate response, though I would not have used all caps. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my general response to cluelessness, especially when it comes from administrators.--Doc^g 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block/deletion of Android Mouse Bot 2

See my response for more details --Android Mouse 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.--Doc^g 10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed something

If you're going to blank spoiler, you might want to also blank endspoiler. Though I imagine someone might revert the first blanking before I even finish typing this message... --- RockMFR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.--Doc^g 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So You Want to Be a Jacobite?

I've got a dead Jacobite for you -- no clue about the categories and such -- Allan Stewart (Jacobite) appears to have been one of the background figures for Rob Roy. Geogre 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a min, thanks.--Doc^g 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Doc, at last able to save, I seem to be banned from editing any page to do with the Arbuthnot family, I have tried to just edit Arbuthnot Family abd could not save, then post on the AFD page and could not save their either. Ant idea what is going on, I could not save here either until I broke a link to Kittybrewster's site. Giano 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know why when I just tried to correct/edit something on the page under discussion I prevented from doing so by a spam filter, it actually said:

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

 The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: if I leave the link to Kittybrewsetr here it won't let me save

annwers on a post card please. Giano 07:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he he. That means a meta admin has listed the kittybrewster website on the spam blacklist. It is barred from all wikimedia projects. Now, don't ask me why. I'll look and see who authorised it.--Doc^g 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is obviosly fixed now, cos I just manage to save [9] Giano 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spam filter went loco. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I love intelligent spam filters :) --Doc^g 10:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I saw that website mentioned, I'm sure you can all immagine my firsth assumption, but then as the old maxim rightly says asumption makes....... Giano 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

As was pointed out at DRV, the gentleman in the article is arguably a participant in his own "fame" (thus, not an object of exploitation), and is the subject of media speculation regarding Chinese internet regulations. Those two points are sufficient to "win" on the strength of argument for those who wish relisting.

Those who wish relisting also had a majority of the qualified commenters, and could point to gross, obvious process flaws. On all three relevant vectors (arguments, numbers, and process), those who wished relisting held the superior position. There are no direct appeals of DRV. You may either initiate another DRV -- which will only make you appear to be process-wonking; or, initiate an RfC. Early closure here is very, very inappropriate. It offends no policy to permit a definitive outcome to occur here. A cycle of endless appeals, wanted by no one, is likely the result of such action. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait until I'm less angry - but right now I'm contemplating reversing your closure. I'm certainly inviting an uninvolved person to do so. This is process-wonking and vote counting going too far.--Doc^g 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly don't see how. I did weigh the strength of the arguments... seems quite clear to me, and I'm not sure anything on Wikipedia is worth getting angry over! :) Xoloz 12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no merit in keeping this. It is all nonsense and myopic internal process crap.--Doc^g 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who honestly and fairly engaged the discussions would know that your last statement here is false. Please make a compelling case that the horrible incorrect closures at DRV should not be overturned. GRBerry 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap articles die. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been made repeatedly. We have debated this for 10 days. Three different admins have closed debates as delete consensus. We've had a DRV and now a third. Drop it.--Doc^g 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had one admin who reversed their own closure, and two whose close was obviously invalid because they avoided reading the actual discussions. I ask you to cease and desist your actions, as they are harming the encyclopedia. GRBerry 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who reversed thought better of it later - and supported the close as delete. So that's not relevant. The other two were obviously valid. I ask you to cease and desist your actions, as they are harming the encyclopedia. --Doc^g 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Campaign

You should note that consummate edit warrior User:L0b0t has replaced the POV uncited section you removed from this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed thanks.--Doc^g 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Sorry, my mistake, thought it was vandalism at first glance. I've reverted back to your edit.MartinBrook t 14:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. no problem.--Doc^g 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. How predictable.--Doc^g 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that'll help?--Doc^g 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Guy. And ArbCom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom made you do it?? No.--Doc^g 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It was rejected as premature due to the lack of an RfC. That's why we're there. Thanks for the completely stupid "Jeff-o-pedia" comment, BTW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is shorthand for the fact that what you want wikipedia to be is not what it is, not what it has ever been, and not what most people ever want it to be. Nothing personal, but you have made yourself the living symbol for a wiki-philosophy, and one that (I think - although I know you disagree in good-faith) is antithetical to what wikipedia is and should be. My smart-arsed remark is not intended as a personal attack, just a sound-bite shorthand for what I see as the underlying issue. Details are details - and they will change with each test case - but the underlying philosophical gulf remains.--Doc^g 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious how close the myth is to the reality. It seems like that divide gets wider and wider. I don't appreciate the commentary as a whole, but I still appreciate you generally giving me a fair shake, and I wonder if the gap that remains is based in a realistic perception sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think perhaps you might want to re-factor your response to make it less personal. Making this an issue of Jeff's beliefs would be highly mistaken, if only because that would serve to personalize the disagreement into a personal fight. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Max Page Edits

I am editing the page to the correct info, Tucker Max is a fictional character created by James Carter, please do not undo correct info as the whole created persona is merely a marketing angle.

Then reference your claim with a source.--Doc^g 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock edit warring

The edit war you participated in on the System Shock article has caused the page to be protected. See Talk:System Shock#Spoiler warnings for discussion. JimmyBlackwing 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.--Doc^g 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extraterrestrial encounter therapy

Hey Doc just wondering why EET was deleted? Cant find out the reason and I'm pretty new to this so please let me know. Thanks mate.

It was as a result of the debate on the issue.--Doc^g 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Eugene Ewing deletion

I must object to your sudden deletion of the article on St. Matthew's Churches and its founder, James Eugene Ewing. I know about WP:BLP and I contend that the information in the article was based on verifiable reports. The links were to published newspaper articles, including information from the Better Business Bureau. If you feel the article was unverified, then I would suggest you submit it for WP:AFD. As it is, I am going to have to contest the deletion. --Modemac 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to review a deletion on request. Sometimes I make mistakes. However, I view you taking this immediately to DRV before I'd had any opportunity to review and respond to be inappropriate.--Doc^g 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Nemo

Hi there! I spotted the motto at the top of your page, but it appears to be missing a little red fish? "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" - "None Me WithImpunity Provokes". Order of the Garter if I'm not mistaken; isn't that what you meant or is this some joke I'm missing? Userus:Radians. 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the thistle actually, but you are right. It should have been "nemo me impune lacessit". I'll put nemo back - he got left out at some point.--Doc^g 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadlyDrawnJeff RFAR

Hi there, I'm just curious what outcome you are hoping for from the RFA. Jeff certainly isn't going to simply take advice from the ArbCom to cool it so, any meaningful outcome is going to require sanctions. Given how much good work that he does, does the level of aggrevation that he represents really justify this? I'm all for deleting crud from the system and I think you are absolutely right about that crappy article but we really do need an articulate advocate for inclusion. Jeff does an excellent (if over enthusiastic at times) job of this and I fear that we could end up driving Jeff away if we are not careful. Best --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want him to drop the issue. That's all.--Doc^g 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think taking him to arbcom is necessarily going to have that effect but thanks for such a quick reply. Consider the matter dropped. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to drop the issue on your terms, you mean. you know I'm willing to drop the issue, but not just because someone tells me to. what's your real rationale? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to stop.--Doc^g 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it does. So have at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way, Jeff. Doc, and you, and I, and twenty-two other Wikipedians endorsed a statement by BigDT that said simply: This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life.

So, let's move on. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Jeff, if you are willing to move on and forget this article and all the surrounding debates. I am willing to drop the case.--Doc^g 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't throw a person into a pit and say "I won't fill this with water if you give me what I want." You undelete it and run and AfD, and I don't pursue it further when it's done. No DRV of the result, no further ArbCom cases, I forget about the wheel warring and let the further abuses and incivility slide. I won't comment on a DRV is someone else brings it up, either, as a compromise and a further show of good faith. This way, I get the hearing you won't offer, and I drop it when it's done whether it goes my way or not. Are you willing to do that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. We've done this. We are an encyclopedia - this is invalid content. It had its shot on AfD (longer than most) - three separate admins closed it as delete. We're done. Actually, if it hadn't been for Xolos' ridiculous overturning, we'd have been done sooner. This has to stop somewhere. It stops here. --Doc^g 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice, then. By the way, if you don't like our content guidelines and policies, work to change them. I'm perfectly able to stay within the lines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Written policy will catch up with us eventually. But common sense can't always be written down. Writing follows practice and not the reverse. I've been arguing for a much tougher re-write of BLP, and most people agree with the intended effect, but when we try to find the words we realise that if we depend on words the words will always exclude things that we agree obviously should be kept. We'll get new words, eventually. But by then we'll have moved on.--Doc^g 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is not common, that's why it can't be written down. Sometime you might realize that an even tougher version of BLP still wouldn't protect against articles like this one, though - there's no violation here unless you write it to say "anything that could be perceived as negative by any certain society as negative is removed." This is when the OTRS thing works against you, really - you're assuming the worst of everything without looking at it objectively. You're normally good about being careful about it, but this is beyond unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are not going to agree here. We couldn't even agree on how to cope with the disagreement. That's why arbitration is finally needed. It's a shame they are unlikely to take it. My sense is, and this isn't a put down, that we should probably leave this conversation at that - otherwise one of us is likely to get angry in frustration. We disagree. That's that.--Doc^g 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. My offer still stands, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'offer' is that I wheel war and undelete the article. I couldn't do that, even if I wanted to.--Doc^g 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that you have a choice. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that I need to be concerned about anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you probably should be looking carefully at the points made in that RFC, by some very experienced and pretty sane Wikipedians. I'd say your choices are extremely limited. Time to drop it. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits blocked

Does this block [10] seem very fair to you, bearing in mind Vintagekits has put up with Kittybrewster and his friends referring to them as members of God knows what organizations over the last few weeks. He should not have called Kittybrewter's pages lies - but who has not had their patience strongly tested by that crew over the last few days. That Kittybrewster can email [11] an admin and then have a Vintagekits blocked on the strength of it - is very worrying. Giano 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the first block was an admin going "OMG personal attack". Given the blockee has a previous history, I have some sympathy with the attitude. However, in the case in point, it appears the admin hadn't really looked at the context, which is not good. So I'd say a poor call, but not outrageous. The re-blocking, on the other hand, is bang out of line. Even if the unblocking was unreasonable (and it wasn't), you don't re-instate your own block. You go to ANI and ask admins to discuss it. Very bad. Almost as bad as the incompetent decision to block Jeff - but don't get me started on that. --Doc^g 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hold my hand up - I should have posted on the blocking admin's talk page, but he had been offline for several hours and I clean forgot. That will teach me to dip my toes into the muddy waters of proper adminning. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is even worse is that the blocking (and reblocking) admin knew there was an ongoing discussion, and still reblocked, posting that he'd done so in the thread - this despite no support for the original block, even. And the Jeff case.... this is a bad, bad day. I'm deeply concerned about the increasing tendancy to be block-happy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one! Giano 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

late feedback...

I did a google on my name, restricted to the domain http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia to see if there were any discussions I participated in, where I missed the last word, or where someone made a complaint about me, without telling me. (I found a few of those.)

WRT [12] and [13]...

FWIW, it was not you, as the closing admin, who I felt was an over-enthusiastic deletionist, who jumped the gun. It was the wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]