User talk:Doc glasgow/Dec 06

Test

Test test test Doc^g 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wednabot test Doc^g 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned your name in an RFarb

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned a recent interaction between yourself and another user in this RFarb[[1]]. I'm sorry I couldn't provide a better link. I'm terrible with links and can't figure out how to link to a section on a page. I also have a terrific headache that's impeding the progress of my learning.

However, given the nature of the thing, I thought it best to just go ahead and let you know - even if the link itself is unpretty. I'm conflicted about including these activities, since I wasn't directly involved (other than the fact that I witnessed it as it was happening).

I would rather not take it out because I do feel it's important, but I'm sorry in advance if it causes you any trouble or concern. On a side note thought your comments were spot-on and long overdue.NinaEliza 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted, thanks.--Doc^g 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo' birthday

What motivated you to change Jimmy Wales's birthday three days ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.193.201 (talk • contribs).

Well a) it wasn't verified b) as it was irrelevant personal information, I removed it per policy --Doc^g 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on September 18, 2004 settled an argument about whether he was born on August 8, 1966 and August 7, 1966. He wrote August 7. Look at the history. Why would you remove what the guy whom the article is about says about himself? I believe considering the source, August 7 should be restored.

MY second point still hold good. Please sign your posts.--Doc^g 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, your second point does not hold up to scrutiny. The policy says: "While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures." A) It would be hard to argue that anyone included in Time's list of the world's most 50 influential people is not a public figure. Plus, Wales has never shied away from media attention. B) Wales's birthday is widely known and verified by such sources as the BBC, the International Speakers Bureau (which represents Wales and books him for public speaking events), and Who's Who (a publication that verifies all of the information it prints with the subject). Just plug Wales's name and DOB into Google, and you will see that it is all over the Web. C) The only legitimate reason for removing the DOB for a public figure, according to the official policy, is if the subject himself complains. As Wales posted the date himself, we can assume that he is not complaining about its publication.

The subject has actually made it clear he had concerns about the date. I removed it in the same manner I regularly handle such OTRS issues. Having the exact date of birth is not critical to the article.--Doc^g 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the subject of the article disputing the date that he posted himself? Or is the subject of the article now regretting that he made his birthdate public? Birthdates are a common feature of biographical encyclopedias. I have signed my question as per your request. I posted the second comment, by the way, not the first and third. (You, I believe, can verify this.) I was looking at Wales's biography and thought it was strange that the birthdate was missing, considering Wikipedia has access to the subject of the biography. I thus began perusing the history, and thought it was even stranger that a possibly innacurate date had been posted for so long. If birthdates are not relevant to biographical articles, perhaps Wikipedia should exclude them from all biographies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylestevens (talk • contribs).

Perhaps we should. As it is, we generally remove them if the subject indicates they would prefer them not to be there.--Doc^g 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. Good result.--Doc^g 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page.)

Thanks. The issue is now academic, I have withdrawn.--Doc^g 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

After doing some of my own research I have thrown my weight behind you for ArbCom. Good luck. --Rtrev 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc^g 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I regret the circumstances that have led you to withdraw from the election. I have every reason to believe that, had you been elected, you would have proven to be a valuable member of the committee. I sincerely hope the early voting does not in any way negatively influence your continuing invaluable contributions to wikipedia. Thanks for all you've done, and for having volunarily subjected yourself to the pressures of the election. Badbilltucker 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your comments are appreciated.--Doc^g 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input sought

You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; btw, if you are still concerned about my views on admin discretion, I agree with the recent WP:PRO, both for process and against it.Septentrionalis 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider

Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here [2]. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, (Radiant) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, my name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer at a national public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a former candidate, if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org and will forward you my number. Neille i 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw man

I was so going to vote for you!--Atlantima 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have too, if I could. As it is, I'm happy you're an admin. "Politics" be damned.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

About IP address 192.203.136.246

Hey, I noticed the warning about vandalism which I didn't do -- I just wanted to say that this IP address doing the vandalism (192.203.136.246) is actually the wireless address for an entire community college (College of DuPage)... I hope you won't block it :-/

Sincerely, Victoria Wang | viv4ce(a)yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.203.136.246 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Create an account and you'll be fine. Otherwise, no guarantees. --Doc^g 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of "Keep" consensus judged for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's University Chess Club

Doc, I should make myself clear to start that I don't think there was consensus to delete the Queen's University Chess Club article. However, I also do not feel that there was consensus to flat-out keep the article either, as only six people took part in the deletion discussion. I would be much more pleased if the article was relisted in order to obtain a clearer consensus, as I think that this article might set a precedent for the inclusion of other clubs at Queen's University in the project. Thanks for your time. Andy Saunders 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to re-list it.--Doc^g 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was coming to ask the same thing. Would it be OK to do this without going through DRV? JChap2007 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just renominate it. You can say the closing admin has no objections if that helps.--Doc^g 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. JChap2007 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhepono

Greetings -- My friend who is a Zuni anthropologist apparently wrote out an article on Uhepono, the head of the Zuni underworld, but when I went to look at it it had already been deleted. Just wondering what was so terrible about it that you wrote "FUCK THIS" in the comments when you deleted it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.28.209 (talk • contribs) }

Aye, right. Your friend who is a respected anthropologist created an article with the sole content <quote>FUCK THIS</quote>? [3]. Troll begone! --Doc^g 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The article itself said "Fuck this?" Weird... Had it been vandalized after he originally wrote it? (I can't see the link you included, it says "limited to admins only." --67.177.28.209 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. No, only one edit, and it said 'fuck this'--Doc^g 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused then. Thanks for responding, and working to keep Wikipedia clean! --67.177.28.209 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User name created to Slur an individual

You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Globulation 2

Hello,

You have suppressed the page Globulation 2. You give two reasons: 1) alpha software and 2) no evidence of notability. I am one of the main developer of glob2, but not the creator of the page on Wikipedia. Yet I think that compared to other free software on WP and with respect to the criteria of listed in WP:SOFTWARE, glob2 has his place on Wikipedia:

1) It is true that we list glob2 as alpha software on our web site. I personally decided so some years ago with respect to classical software development cycle, where alpha version is a version with not all features, beta version is a full-featured version with some bugs, and final version is (theoretically) perfect software. This model apply less to free software, where they are released often and constantly improved. Glob2's actual state is much more mature than most free software games. In particular, it is fully playable, including on the Internet, and included in most major distributions. I thus think that the objection about alpha software does not hold.

2) There is several evidence of notability, mostly distribution inclusion but also web site reference. Distribution inclusions:

• Ubuntu [4] [5] (listed as the real-time strategy game)
• Debian [6]
• FreeBSD [7]
• Gentoo [8]
• Darwin Ports [9]

There is also several RPM packaged by individuals on the net for RPM-based distributions. Glob2 may be included in other distributions, but I think that this sample shows its inclusion is not isolated. Glob2 is also listed in several web sites. Some of them might have been edited by members of glob2 community, but the amount of comments and reaction shows that we are far from being the only one reading/maintaining those pages:

• The Linux Game Tome [10], 89 comments, 5 stars on 51 votes
• Several web sites [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] .. .and more, but I won't copy paste here all google results ;-)

If you want to probe Glob2's notability, feel free to search the web using "glob2" or "globulation 2" keywords.

Thanks, have a nice day--nct 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't supress anything. I simply closed the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globulation 2. I know nothing about software - but blog evidence is not generally admissible in wikipedia.--Doc^g 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right about blog evidence, I shouldn't have put it there. The other reasons (distribution inclusion and journal/non-blog references) are still valid. Sorry to have bother you about that, I will feel a request on Wikipedia:Deletion_review instead. Thanks, have a nice day. --nct 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

You posted the following on my talk page [19] but it doesn't make any sense. I have no idea of which archive you are talking about or why/what was done. Could you educate me? Balloonman 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Churches

I think the best idea would be to merge it into WP:LOCAL, and redirect it there. LOCAL is mostly stable and focuses on merging rather than deletion. I don't think it's all that helpful to have WP:SUPERMARKET, WP:RESTAURANT, WP:CHURCH and WP:GAS_STATION and other subsections. Obviously is a church is large enough to be known outside its own city, people can't say "delete per WP:LOCAL". HTH! >Radiant< 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Despite of your "IRC" opinion that I am "not worth it", It is only fair of me to give you notification of this edit of mine here [20], and chance to respond to it. I mention it only because the thread is now so long things are easily missed, and I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand. Giano 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother responding to that. When I say you are "not worth it", I meant simply that there is no point in getting upset at, surprised by, or trying to cure, your incivility and assumptions of bad faith. But I guess you'll want to assume I meant something altogether more sinister. I now intend to follow my own advice and comment no further.--Doc^g 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Doc, shame you ever commented in the first place really, isn't it? Giano 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Doc^g 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of here, congratulations, you see Kelly's mates are just too powerful [21] who will be the next to stand up to her I wonder. Giano 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to understand. Are you assuming anyone who is critical of you is somehow 'mates' with Kelly? That's a tad egocentric. It would be a shame if you left. Not surprising perhaps. But a shame nevertheless. I'd much have preferred working with you constructively and in a civil manner. However, perhaps that will happen. No-one as addicted as us leaves for long. I predict you'll be back. --Doc^g 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoot.

For outstanding common sense and civility. Ben Aveling

Hi Doc, Sorry I didn't drop this in earlier. You have, in mine eyes, been an outstanding example of common sense and civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that made my day. It is so much better than the assumptions of bad-faith, I've unfortunately grown used to. I'll put it in my trophy cabinet. --Doc^g 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do, it was well earned. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of sub-heads at RfA

Hi, Doc,

Taking your recent words to heart, I made the Be Bold move and sub-divided the excessively long RfA for BostonMA, which was promptly reverted by user Heliogoland. Would you mind weighing in on whether using sub-headings actually "screws up WP:RFA" as the user has commented? Thanks, --Leflyman^Talk 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work

I hate to point this out, but this and this don't work because of this and this. There is also this and this, but ultimately, given human nature, these sort of things will be recreated. My advice? Force substitution and/or kick it upstairs. Carcharoth 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This project also has a template. This could either be better (oversight) or worse (ends up like Esperanza). Carcharoth 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Had. Now deleted. I'm looking for someone with a bot or AWB to do the work.--Doc^g 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NB, the following need depopulated. Any volunteers:[22] [23] [24] --Doc^g 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if one person does all that in one go, their contributions list for that period becomes a list by default, even if they use misleading edit summaries. Isn't it amaxing how wiki tools can be misused? I suggest e-mailing someone to depopulate on the quiet, or even oversighting the depopulating edits. Tracking down the populating edits would take a long time and might be going a bit too far, particularly as lots of non-oversighted stuff already exists in page histories. When it is found and linked to, though, it should be oversighted. Carcharoth 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian

I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We have articles on subjects not terms. The subject is wikipedia and should redirect there. We don't do terms just because they have some currency, try wiktionary. Take it to deletion review if you must.--Doc^g 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

does that mean Google (verb) and thousands of similar such terminology articles can qualify for an AFD? frummer 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

please also see... {{wiktionary|wikipedian}} - frummer

No, it doesn't, because Google the verb is much, much more notable and widespread than the term "Wikipedian". I've seen Google used on many television programs, and frequently in real life. The only time I've ever heard Wikipedian was in the context of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. The two situations are not comparable. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While it was easy to find a reference for the actual word Wikipedian (Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. [25] Last accessed January 02, 2007) I did in fact "Just google it" and have been unable to find the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that an article requires. Thus I third the motion that this stay a redirect.
brenneman 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the term was notable (yuk! I hate the word), what would information would an article contain that would be different from WIkipedia?? It would be merely a dicdef, and we'd redirect.merge it to Wikipedia, where we'd include the line 'people that use Wikipedia are sometimes known as Wikipedians'. If you could show that there was more than one use, we'd perhaps allow a dab (see Googler) but not an article. We don't do dicdefs (unless a dab is needed to differentiate articles).--Doc^g 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29#MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

Could you look at your comment in the deletion review, my comment in the deletion review, and the AFD and give me your thoughts. I opined Keep in the AFD and Endorse Deletion in the deletion review. Where was I wrong? GRBerry 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not necessarily wrong - we are just operating with different wiki philosophies. I see no need to remove verifiable information from wikipedia. If the thing doesn't merit an article, then merge it or redirect it. It saves on a deletion debate anyway. Unverifiable items should be deleted. The question of unverifiability was raised in the debate. When that question is raised, the arithmetic of the AfD should be irrelevant. The question is, does the debate indicate it is or is not verifiable? The debate indicated it was, so the reason for deletion no longer exists. --Doc^g 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Child cat

Awww... bugger.

I hope, really deeply hope, really truly madly deeply hope, I /* insert ever-increasing stream of modifiers */ hope that you don't think I'm arguing a position just to do so.

It's simply that there are lots of issues tangled up here and no one seems willing to even try to pull the threads apart. There's the short and the long, and I am under no obligation to agree with one simply becaue I agree with the other. It's not me being caught up on "process" it's about me having respect for other people's opinions.

The root of it is that some people thought this was toxic enough that it must be killed right bloody now. Others disagreed. Rather than using words to sort it out, deletion was used. More to the point, Cyde explicitly said he deleted it because debate hadn't.

We all three agree the category was useless. Almost all of them are. But if the case can't be made convincingly in a deletion debate, then we should not be hammering the button to make us right.

I'm very nearly done, but for this:

Another admin had closed a CfD and decided not to "kill on sight." Cyde was willing to over-ride that guy, but has said right out it would have been wrong for me to over-ride Cyde's deletion.

How does that not equate to "I'm right because it's me and I'm right?"

brenneman 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are two sides to a debate, then we need to weigh them up, and decide who is right. But look at that DRV. There is no argument being made for the retention of this category that isn't a process argument. No one is even hinting that the think is useful or beneficial. The best argument for retention is that it may turn out to be harmless - that's hardly a very convincing reason to keep something lots of people reckon to be potentially extremely harmful. Sure, debates are nice. But this 'debate' is demonstrating that there really isn't a debate to have. Your argument for overturning Cyde seems to amount to 'hey, we need a debate' - well, why? The debate over whether we need a debate is demonstrating that fact that a debate although procedurally correct would be useless. Short answer is I see no case for not nuking these things on sight - and plenty of reasons to do so. I'm right, because I have a reasoned justification - and no-one has presented a remotely convincing counter argument.

On a wider point, this whole thing is causing me to philosophise. I drew back from userbox deletions as I began to think that debating with the myspace tendency was more of a distraction than allowing them to have their toys. I'm now wondering whether that is correct. The problem with opening the door to trivia is that we are doomed to have countless debates about where the boundaries should lie. Even if we are fairly liberal on this, we'll just be having the debate at a different point. Perhaps the only satisfactory conclusion is to have a zero tolerance approach - if it doesn't serve the encyclopedia in a convincing way, it is nuked. Period. But then I guess to propose the above would be another time-wasting distraction. :( --Doc^g 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusungood. You're making the same argument Cyde is making: That because the DRV is coming out all in favour of the category being gone, that it was all right to nuke it. That's hart-and-course stuff. If Cyde had taken the five minutes to write a convincing argument for CfD, we'd have had the same discussion there and everyone would be happy. I'd say "hey, not really that dangerous, mostly perception" someone else would say "but perception _is_ dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation" I'd say "that's reasonable" and everything would merrily stream along. I'd note that no one has made that reasonable argument, instead foisting the ill-informed "think of the children!" canard out, but *shrug*

This in fact is the wider point: Talking after the fact is almost always disruptive. For the times when there is strong consensus it would have taken very little extra to proceed normally, for the times when there is not consensus it raises a maddening bun-fight. Just mashing the button and hoping for the best is laziness. When they used to grade exams in Navy Nuke School, if a student got something that ws close to the expected solution but the workings-out were hazy, the mark put down was "ABA - Answer by accident." This is the same thing.

Looking back to the userbox fiasco, where are the boxwarrior now? Where is the onslaught of mindless boxen we saw, pushing the edge futher and further? "Just how close can I get to my hamster when vaccuming without anything bad happening?" That was a problem caused by trying to solve a problem, too. Much more disruption was caused by deletion there than by the boxen.

And you surely must know you're preaching to the choir with regards to being focused on what serves the encyclopedia, right? I'm the jack-booted-nazi-midget-clown of removing unsourced material in mainspace, and I only made my vanity header because Larry made me. But when it comes to using adminstrative powers, lightly is better.

brenneman 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, and here's my main problem with DRV. IF Cyde has hit the 'accidental right answer' then don't mark the answer as wrong, slap the student and tell him to work it out next time. Don't undelete crap to punish the person that deletes it in the wrong way. If Wikipedia is better off without the crap, then puting it back in wikipedia is surely 'disrupting to prove a point' (even if a valid point).

However, in this case, I don't think Cyde needs slapped, I think CfD needs slapped. If Cyde came up with the 'accidental right answer', CfD came up with the 'deliberative wrong answer'. And before you say that's just my opinion: no it isn't just that. The DRV rather shows that the CfD did not in fact represent a true consensus of Wikipedians. Cyde, in fact, anticipated that better than CfD.--Doc^g 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I actually agree with some of that... and I can even accept that it's at time acceptable to "run the CfD" in the deletion review forum. But since people can just "vote" there, it doesn't lend it self to real debate. That's partly my own fault, when we moved it from VfU it was made voting to avoid "DRv of DRv of DRv."

The problem with the previous nomination debates wasn't that they were wrong just that they framed the question wrong: If they had had more thoughtful and careful nominations, presenting the issues of reputational damage (real) as well as physical harm (very slight but possible) versus the gains of "networking" on articles or whatever it is that people do with these things, the outcome would have been unquestioned.

I've offered to Cyde that next time something like this happens, he let me help him write a better nomination and we send it through the normal way. It's a more robust method, and there is no potential for admin-scuffling. Although I'm normally a 1RR man in mainspace and a 0RR sysop action, if I had happened to have seen this right as it happened I'd almost certainly have restored it and sent it to CfD myself. Which of course would have made more drama...

Have I said, by the way, that's it very very good to have you around, cantankerous cuss that you are? I don't think you ever got the "welcome back" message from me since your user-page came blue again. So, err, "welcome back."

brenneman 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

You closed the Afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wills and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Wilson (Countdown) as KEEP. Both debates featured three calls for deletion, including the nomination, and two keeps. That's not a conensus to delete, but it's hardly a consensus to keep. I think "no consensus" would be a more appropriate characterization of both debates, and I'm wondering why you labeled them as you did. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No consensus to delete results in a keep. --Doc^g 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi vey. I thought I was losing it. Am I allowed to give these guys a slap for wasting time with copy/paste nominations and recomendations? - brenneman 02:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate AfD. I'd forgotten why I seldom touch it with a barge poll. Slap 'em all. :) --Doc^g 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Oates

Hi. You recently closed this debate stating that the result was to keep the article, however, I count 3 delete votes to 2 keep votes! Forbsey 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which isn't a consensus to delete, so we keep it.--Doc^g 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of dictators

On Dec 20th you closed Deleted the AFD for List of dictators. It has since been recreated with a reference. I was not participating in the discussion and did not see the original so I don't know how the current relates to the deleted page, but your reason listed in the closure would apply to any such page. Not really interested one way or the other (Just thought it odd the Delete had a blue link.) but I thought you might want to look into it. Dimitrii 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

redeleted thanks. --Doc^g 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pemberton Avenue & Old Finch Avenue

Hey are these good to be deleted as well? Nlsanand 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Mary's Catholic School

How could you possibly close this as a "keep"? The article has since been redirected, but I can't believe that seven delete opinions (including the nominator), one person for a redirect, and three keep !votes equates to a "keep" closure, especially when you give no rationale as to why/how you made this closure. -- Kicking222 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep, that means it defaults to delete. Sorry, should have spelled that out, I assumed people knew the policy.--Doc^g 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean if there is no consensus to delete, if defaults to keep... Martinp23 18:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agh, responding to six things at once. Of course,--Doc^g 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

gee thanks

Thanks for wanting to hit me with a stick that would provberbly finish me off for tonight after the other attacks I have recieved.--Lucy-marie 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, retracted.--Doc^g 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Doc, please don't add non-neutral, self-serving sources to articles as external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 00:39, January 7, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add anything, but links to official pages of the subject are quite normal.--Doc^g 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of places named after people AFD

I'm curious as to your rationale for closing this as "keep". I thought we had some fairly good arguments for deleting this... but then again, I'm biased, I was the nominator. Brianyoumans 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the list sucks allright, but 11d to 8k is not a consensus, and thee are no overriding policy reasons to delete (although there are good reasons).--Doc^g 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have given a bit more explanation of your "keep" decision at the top of the page. AfD is not a vote any more, so it would help if admins. give their reasons on closing in cases where there is no obvious consensus. There was actually a clear consensus that, at the very least, the list needed fixing. A comment like "Keep, but clean up" would have done the trick. I'm not trying to get on your case because I voted "delete". I'm just making the general point that a few words of explanation from an admin. can often avert a challenge to the closing decision and all the ensuing bother of re-nomination or DRV. Thanks. --Folantin 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All articles may need cleaned up. That's for working out on talk pages. The motion was to delete, and there wasn't a consensus to do that. Admins aren't there to issue content directions. You are always welcome to renominate it after a while if you think the clean-up isn't working.--Doc^g 11:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just gave that as an example. All I'm saying is that in contentious cases such as this (where there were more delete than keep votes - and the keep votes themselves were conditional), the admin. should give some indication of the reason for his or her decision, even if it's only "Keep. No consensus". --Folantin 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the explanation. Putting "no consensus" might have been more informative than just "keep", but what's done is done. --Brianyoumans 17:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been working under the assumption that people on AfD are aware of the deletion policy, evidently I am in error.--Doc^g 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say more that people have gotten used to "no consensus" being described with those words, rather than with "keep". I know that I at least, have different standards for deletion review or the timing of a later AFD when the first AFD was "no consensus" instead of "keep". GRBerry 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the number of afd complaints

Hello. I noticed a number of complaints about your decisions at afd closures. While I am not an admin and am speaking out of place, please consider that if there is no consensus to delete the article in question, generally the afd discussion is closed as no consensus as opposed to keep. While both statements are similar since no consensus defaults to keep, it is important if a user decides to nominate the article for deletion again. Then, if the previously discussed article was closed as keep, there is established precedent for it to be kept; but if it is closed as no consensus, then there is only established precedent of no consensus, which carries less weight — Iamunknown 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It leads me to a different conclusion. It leads me to the conclusion that a) folk on AfD need to acquaint themselves with policy. b) There's too many people on afd whose sole purpose is to delete things. If there is no consensus to delete, then there is no consensus to delete and so we keep. Move on. --Doc^g 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you "move on" and stop closing everything as keep when there's either no consensus (which should be closed as no consensus, not keep) or a consensus to delete (as there was for Saint Mary's Catholic School, for which I have opened a DRV). You mention above that you rarely touch AfD because you hate the process; I would like to politely ask you to never touch AfD. Obviously, I am not the only one who disapproves of your decisions, and if you're unwilling to budge, I'd hope you would simply stay away from the process altogether. Have a nice day. -- Kicking222 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time I got complaints was when I deleted something, so I don't always 'keep' things.--Doc^g 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully endorse Kicking222's suggestion, as I was also quite taken aback to see you close several AfDs as "keep" that - to me - clearly were either "no consensus" or "delete". Best, Sandstein 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a lack of respect here, but never mind. First of all, although I think my judgeemnt is good (and the fact that, as far as I recall, I've never had an AfD closure reversed on appeal speaks to that), I am not infallible and not arrogant. Everytime someone complains about any decision of mine, I review it, and if I'm mistaken I reverse it. On this occasion, I stick by my closure. However, I will take the point that people are failing to understand policy: that is that AfD is about deletion, and if their is no consensus to delete we keep, decisions about merges and redirection are always open to editors and don't need AfD. In future I will spell out that my keep lies in there not being a consensus to delete. I thought people didn't need spoon-fed that much - but obviously they do. I often close borderline debates that others shy from - I often complains that I've deleted or no-deleted. The balance of the complaints leads me to believe I get most calls about right, as indeed DRV has invariably proved on occasions that the disgruntled have sought another avenue. The concerns are noted.

I have never claimed that I lack respect for you; in fact, I certainly respect you. I respect anyone who attempts to make WP a better place, even if I don't agree with them on everything; in addition, anyone who is made an admin (with few exceptions) certainly deserves respect. However, closing AfDs as "keep" when they have consensus to delete, speaking to people as if they were children ("people are failing to understand policy" as opposed to "people disagree with my interpretation of policy"; "I thought people didn't need spoon-fed that much"; et al), and commenting on every statement in a DRV who disagrees with you are not ways to earn respect. -- Kicking222 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an irony in you patronising me by telling me not to patronise people. Sorry, if I was patronising, I really didn't mean to be. But deletion policy is clear: At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains. It is binary - we have a consensus to delete, or we keep. As for accusing people of failing to understand policy, that's exactly what has been happening on this page. I've been accused of not following policy, when I've believe I have. Sorry if I've been a little defensive, but I believe I'm in the right, and have felt under attack from those who basically didn't get the closure they wanted.--Doc^g 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been getting a little hot under the collar, and apparently, so are you. I'm going to attempt to simply let this DRV run its course and not get down on people for their opinions. If nothing else, I would ask that you use the phrase "no consensus" in deletion discussions when appropriate, if for no other reason than (as stated above) as a clarification if a renomination takes place. Especially in the DRV discussion, I don't think you are under attack, but merely that others disagree with you. Even in terms of other AfD closures to which people have objected, it is not you- your personality, your character, your ability to carry out your admin duties- that are under fire; just a small portion of your administrative actions. -- Kicking222 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My final question to you: Would you personally be against redirecting the page to either the St. Mary's dab or Darley Abbey as opposed to keeping it? I think making this choice known, no matter which option you favor (OK for redirection or outright keeping the page) would help clarify both your stance and mine in the DRV. -- Kicking222 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally? I'd delete the f***ing thing outright. I hate schools articles. They attract nothing but vandalism and libels. You've no idea how many headteachers we get complaining on OTRS.--Doc^g 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I had no idea. I would not have passed judgement on you in terms of (dis)approval of school articles either way. I also did not know that teachers had such problems; perhaps that's actually a good thing, as it might get more teachers to edit WP. -- Kicking222 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Template:EditAdvice}}

Could you undo the speedy delete and put this through TfD. Thanks, Addhoc 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look here [26], I think you'll see that there is a consensus to delete these things. Why do you think we need a new debate? --Doc^g 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, my opinion was the civil2 template should be deleted. However, I consider the EditAdvice template is meaningfully different. I reviewed the recent uses of this template only yesterday and the template appeared to be used in a constructive manner. Also, the responses to the template use didn't appear to be problematic. Given that I edited the template yesterday, I express suprise that you speedied without discussion. Could I again request that you recreate and open a discussion at TfD? Thanks, Addhoc 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, seeing you asked nicely, I'll undelete and send it for a TfD discussion. I do review my admins actions on request, and, on reflection, perhaps speedying this was a bit hasty. However the wiki is operating at dead slow for me just now, so it might be an hour or two before I can do this. Thanks again for your very civil request.--Doc^g 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism in Kazakhstan

If that is how you feel then there are about 50 pages you may want to put up for deletion. See all the articles under Category:Terrorism by country. There are also about 20 categories you may want to put up for CFD. KazakhPol 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote delete on may things knowing that other awful things remain. One at a time.--Doc^g 02:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

The anon has just violated 3RR and shows no signs of stopping, despite my warning on Talk:Mike Mendoza. I've posted to WP:AN/3RR but if you're still currently online, could you take action? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, already blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy also?

You just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination), would you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy also. The nomination is incredibly vague, the nominator has never edited or commented on the talk page before. Please see my comments on the article.

I was really disappointed that User:Khodavand put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination) up for deletion, in probable violations of WP:POINT. I am one of the strongest supporters of the existance of this page, so I was pretty angry when he put the page up for deletion.

With User:Khodavand unfortunatly I have seen this behavior before though. A fairly new editor has his new article put up by deletion by editors who know wikipolicy like the back of there hand. He gets angry and violates WP:POINT. Granted, this doesnt excuse User:Khodavand behavior. Everyone should follow wikipolicy. I would like to humbly request your review of this situation. I will respect your decision, no matter what you decide.

Thanks for taking the time to listen. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to decline. That particular AfD is generating a debate, and even if the nomination was poorly worded or in bad faith (and I don't know either way), there are obviously a lot of Wikipedians who want the article deleted, and it is right to have a debate where the issue can be decided. The article I closed had already had two debates and one recently, there was nothing to be gained from another at this juncture.--Doc^g 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Finally!! Somebody agree with me. I really think anything that is not confirm by Clarence House should put on Wikipedia. Wiki is not a tabloid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hau yee818 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

sean parker-perry

I see my vandal has returned to this page.

i would be really grateful if this vandal could be prohibited from attacking a living person's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yellowfrogs (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Concern about removal of one of my edits

I was going back to check up on the Palm Bay Senior High School page, and was needless to say rather startled to find a huge chunk of my edit, regarding the 2005 graudation venue controversy, gone entirely. Checking the history, I see you were the user who removed it. Your edit comment, while... descriptive enough to at least give me a hint as to why, failed to really convey exactly the reasons for the removal of the entire section (as opposed to fact-tagging, which personally, I prefer, as it definitely still brings information to attention as unsourced,etc., while giving other users a chance to find sources if you yourself can't or don't have the time to). You wrote in your edit summary: "13:22, 17 September 2006 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) (→The 2005 graduation venue controversy - section removed per WP:LIVING - no references and several apparent errors)" I would like to ask what these "several apparent errors" were. If you could spot "several" specific "apparent errors", one would assume that some of it would be either simply unverified (e.g. merely need sourcing) or that you actually knew something about some of it and thought it to be incorrect. Either way, it doesn't seem called for to remove the entire section on a very notable incident in the school's history.

Now, poking through the post-my-edit history, that section underwent several changes, particularly explicit mentions of a writer named Narciso (or something like that), and a confusing reference to her being rumored to be Jennifer Musgrove's mother (either they're confused, or I was, because everyone I had talked to at the time - as well as, IIRC, one local newspaper - mentioned that "her mother's an atheist book author"). There's also other stuff in there about additional supposed reasons why Calvary Chapel was chosen as the venue for those graduation ceremonies that was put in there later.

Keep in mind, though - the event DID occur, there WAS a court case filed in suit, the ruling exists. It should NOT be ignored completely, is all I'm saying. Fast-checking was desperately needed, of course, but as I noted on the Talk page for the article:

As you'll notice from my edit description, I am simply stunned that the 2005 graduation ceremony venue controversy was not so much as referenced. It made numerous news programs in the area, and was a rather intense controversy; the judicial decision regarding which, had ramifications for the entire school district

This meant whole new restrictions (beyond physical safety, capacity, etc.) were likely placed on Brevard County's public schools regarding venues for events, certainly graduations but likely other events as well. The fact that this happened because a student at Palm Bay Senior High's family filed suit makes it a really notable fact that should very obviously be included in the article about the school. There are some other public schools whose articles one Wikipedia mention things as compartively small and common as hazing incidents that received publicity, so clearly, something like this needs a mention at least.

As of now, I'm planning only to edit the article to mention the following:

There was some controversy regarding the school's chosen graduation venue in 2005, which was an auditorium in a local Calvary Chapel facility which featured a large cross shape carved into the wall behind the stage. A suit was filed in court by the families of two Palm Bay Senior High students, in an attempt to block the usage of the religious facility for a secular public school ceremony in favor of a secular venue; the judge presiding over the case ruled that it was too late to change the venue (and thus that the 2005 graduation ceremony of Palm Bay Senior High School, as well as those of several other local high schools, would proceed as planned in the Calvary Chapel facility), but that in following years the Brevard County public schools would have to find a secular venue for graduation ceremonies.

I won't name names yet - the only one I was ever sure of (and thus, why my initial edit mentioned only her) was Jennifer Musgrove, though I knew there were two students' families filing suit - and I won't name details until I've found a specific source for every single claim (though I'm still not sure how to add references, as opposed to links directly to a source, to articles on Wikipedia. Isn't there a tutorial for this kind of thing somewhere??). But, it does deserve at least a reference to the controversy. The big problem with this section isn't that it's completely untruthful (which it wasn't, for the most part at least, with the initial edit, save for the possiblity I acknowledge of having confused Musgrove's mother with another woman due to popular rumors); it's that so very many Florida papers that covered it do not have easily accessible back issues available online, not even from 2005. Same of course, with the local TV news stations - they don't exactly keep that stuff easily available online for long, from what I've found so far (the cheap bastards). So most of the sources have either vanished or are only available at the local libraries in hard copy or microfiche form. If you really want, I could look there, but it did happen. Though the beach may be messy, there's a few grains of truth there.

Once again - I really wish you would tell us WHICH "apparent errors" you spotted. It would help a lot in regards to what needs sources and what should or shouldn't go back in. :) OK? Runa27 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So long ago, I can't remember. I'll try to look into it.--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

South DeKalb Mall AfD

Noticed you closed this as Keep, without comment. Do you mind if I ask why? I may be biased, but consensus seems to be in favor of deletion, and the keep !voters didn't address the sources or notability concerns as far as I can see. Shimeru 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus ont hat page. No consensus means keep. We don't need the other issues addressed in a deletion debate as the existence of the subject is not in dispute. If there are unverifiable claims, then source them or remove them. Lack of 'notability' is not in itself a deletion criterion, although it may lead some people to favour deletion.--Doc^g 11:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your reasons, but I feel you were mistaken; it's long been established that existence is not sufficient for inclusion, and verifiability and reliable sources are established policy and guideline, respectively. I've opened a deletion review on the article. Shimeru 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the review, but I wanted to thank you again here for finding sources. It's heartening, and unfortunately somewhat rare, to see someone improve the article rather than simply assert notability. For taking the extra step, I award you:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For stepping up to {{sofixit}} by tracking down sources. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Times like these, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is always good to be proven wrong. I enjoy it too sometimes.:)--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Doc_glasgow on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Doc-glasgow. Thanks. --Doc^g 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it.--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider -man 3

Please see the very long and very abusive post by Ace Class Shadow on the Spider-man 3 talk page. He uses many expletives, and is overall very rude in his comments. He's done this frequently before. Thanks. I've noticed you have had to warn him before. He frequently chews people out on Wikipedia. This needs to be addressed. Schnicker 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have got the message now.--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

A special thanks for liking me so much that you voiced your support for me twice on my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, you're welcome. --Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Defenders of the Christian Faith

I posted a message at Talk:Defenders of the Christian Faith as a reply to yours. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk page.--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delection of Kill phil

Could you review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kill_phil. It seems that you forgot to delete also the sequel Kill Phil 2 also listed in the same AfD. Cate | _Talk 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that.--Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no

I'm sorry for not seeing it. My mistake. Happy holidays!!! --PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

N.P. --Doc^g 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll

When? WookMuff 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone of my emails, but i didn't realise your warning was BEFORE the second edit and once i did, i was still rather angry. But seriously, with the exception of poking fun at ThuranX (whose bullish unwillingness to change his mind bugs me) my second edit was serious. ACS's habit of unilateral action irks not just myself but many other editors on the hero pages, as noticeable by the amount of edit warring that surrounds his reverts. I thought the second edit was somewhat tame compared to the first. WookMuff 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

sean parker-perry

please see latest entry by 81.77.216.206. this page was blocked by you a couple of months ago. needs blocking again?

living person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

sean parker-perry

living person sean parker-perry and topic: longdendale bypass you previously blocked malicious user 'jonnyreynolds' under IP: 81.77.216.206 it seems this 'block' has expired and this person has reverted back to hacking these pages!!! pemanent block required please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).