User talk:Doc glasgow/Feb 08

John Michael Wright

On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Michael Wright, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

This is closer to an FA than a DYK! Good work, Doc! --JayHenry (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on it, still a bit to go.--Doc^g 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nice, though it could do with a little more on his stylistic position, and perhaps his C20th re-emergence from obscurity. I'll point it out to User:PKM, although he may be a tad late for her. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree - but unfortunately I can find no more in the sources. If anyone can help I'd be obliged, I hope this could be an FA with a little improvement.--Doc^g 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it needs a picture at the top - especially as the first picture you come to now is not even by him. You do it, but it should be done. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, there's a tonne of great pictures not featured in the text - I'll upload one of them.--Doc^g 14:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my specialty, but seems OK. The only things I could spot were minor style issues. You may wish to add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article (see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information), or link the dates so that they are autoformatted for readers using set date preferences (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking for more information). DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do. Much obliged for the copyedit - I see you've picked up quite a bit. I still want to do some re-writing of the last section on legacy, which is bitty. --Doc^g 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually the 1953 Waterhouse edn you are using? If so I might be able to add from the 1978 4th edn, to which I think a good deal was added (plus PKM gets the title on google books, though I've never tried; there must be a 5th edn by now). Next week. If you are using a later edn, you should specify. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't actually have a copy. I know there are other editions, but the source indicates that the discovery of the Birth certificate was first announced in that edition. I really doubt there will be much more information in the book, as my bio covers everything the recent sources give me. But the sources are really scant here, not much is known. --Doc^g 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered, I'm afraid, at one step forward and two back. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Leykis

I was just in the middle of removing vaste swathes of unsourced controversial content myself. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I started doing that, and then decided there was just too much crap. If you want to reverse my deletion and do something else, I have no objection.--Doc^g 10:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to reverse your deletion. You never line out what you specifically found problematic. You are very very vague, and it isn't really logical to delete an article with that much activity and participation in Wikipedia. It makes much more sense to participate in the page and justify that participation. It just dismays and annoys lots of Wikipedeans. You don't find it necessary to take the time to line out what you object to? This just simply amounts to arbitrary censorship, which is in my understanding an anathema to the basis for the Wikipedia policy that allows open contribution from even the casual, anonymous contributor. You have just set an example for other administrators to arbitrarily censor pages without more than just a general commentary that the page "has problems." That is a very irresponsible path to follow. I believe that one reason Wikipedia is here is to discourage any kind of censorship, especially arbitrary censorship, and what you have done with the Tom Leykis page isn't following that intention. --Victorcoutin (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MQDuck (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fire

Thanks for the protection of Fire, it gets vandalised all the time. A pain. Fireproeng (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist userbox

Is there any discussion on your deletion of this userbox? I realize it can create upset, but it being on a userpage only creates internal drama, away from wikipedia. It won't keep anyone from creating div'd userbox's anyway. I don't understand this rational. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I apologize (and on Mcduck's talkpage); I found the deletion review. I'll spare you the paragraph-length apology, which is so my style ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. The DRV can decide the outcome.--Doc^g 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ken Macdonald

Thanks for your comments on the BLP noticeboard. I have now done some expansion of the article, which should set the drugs issue in broader context. I've tried to balance the article but there is an awful lot of negative prss coverage out their (I've not even gone near the reports of an affair in early 2007). Could you watch the article for a bit, as unfortunately my query on the noticeboard doesn't seem to have got much attention, and it's quite possible that User:Ironman1104 will try to remove reference to the conviction again, and I don't want to end up in an edit war? Thanks, David Underdown (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is well cited, and you seem to have balanced positive and negative coverage of his appointment. Given that it is a biography, it is just a pity that more can't be found on his role, career, performance etc., that doesn't relate to the controversy of his appointment - but that's just a comment. My interest in the BLP noticeboard is to make sure articles don't violate BLP and people are not slandered, I don't think you are doing that, but I personally have little interest in getting into a dispute between editors over this where no-one is violating BLP. If you do get into a dispute, try discussion on the talk page, and if that fails then use the dispute resolution processes to ask others to chip in.--Doc^g 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In some ways there's almost too much stuff out there, he's pretty widely quoted int eh press, bt it's hard to work out a sensible narrative. I only stumbled over the article as a result of reverting vandalism (by someone claiming to be his son!) so it's rather outside my normal interests. David Underdown (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are doing fine. Just remember that with bios, a whitewash is always less damaging than either slander or a one-sided hatchet job. Not that the article is that, but it is better IMO to involve yourself in fighting off attackers than defenders of the subject (although a curse on them both).--Doc^g 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Ferguson

Doc, do you read the articles you delete? Ron Ferguson has written a range of books ranging from those that are valuable studies of Scottish cultural history to spiritual works-he was head of the Iona Community, and then a very senior cleric ( I don't think presbyterians call them bishops) at a cathedral in the Orkneys. He himself would tell you no-one ever buys his books. Bashereyre (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not only did I read the article, I am familiar with the subject (and no, not a bishop, indeed no longer a serving minister). I regularly read his column in the Herald. He's notable all right, the problem is that the article I deleted was not a biography on him, but a puffery piece on a particular book - I suspect created by a publisher's agent. "best known for his two books about Cowdenbeath F.C:" - not so. "charmed all who read" - utterly POV. Gordon Brown wrote the forward? Who cares. If you want to write a proper bio of the guy, be my guest.--Doc^g 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I appreciate your comments on this FAC and I believe that I've addressed your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have only skimmed the article. If I get time I'll try to read it through, until then I can't comment further. Good Luck.--Doc^g 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

JMW

I was wondering if you still wanted me to review John Michael Wright. I can do so next week - just curious if I should put it on my reviewing schedule. Awadewit | talk 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Answered on talk, with thanks.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request

You stated here that you would be willing to give rollback to "any user (exempting obvious trolls) on reasonable request." Would you please enable rollback functionality for me? I don't do vandalism patrolling on a daily basis, but I do engage in it sometimes, and rollback would be helpful there. *** Crotalus *** 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Doc^g 09:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. *** Crotalus *** 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm sorry you're upset. I started the vote after watching the swirling mess, because I honestly can't see a way to gauge what people think without something big, dumb and stupid in this case. Sticking all active editors who want to weigh in a talk page will be pointless, since there would be 1000+ users, 90 pages of talk archives, and debates within debates within debates, and no action. This at least will give a basic idea of what is supported. Lawrence Cohen 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you meant well, and I'm not upset. I'm angry at myself for wasting time with this. The coup against consensus wins, and we just live with it now. I'm withdrawing and shutting up as I was instructed.--Doc^g 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on Doc, can you think of anything we could try to sort this out? I can't believe it's descended into edit warring on the vote page. There must be a simple way to sort this all out. Would a suggestion to turn it off, take a month off and start right back at the beginning be a better option? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think I had edited that page at all this morning! But, if it helps you to blame me, then fine, I'm out of this. You win, (actually, all credit to you for an incredible coup) I am now going to shut up on the matter as I have been asked.--Doc^g 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, last edit was 3.5 hours ago to that page. You'll find the history tag at the top of the page.....did you simply see an edit war and think "must be Doc"? Has my reputation sunk that low? Well, I guess I deserve it.--Doc^g 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No no no, I was simply coming to you for advice - I know the edit war had nothing to do with you, and please accept my appologies if i made it sound that way. Please Doc, I'd appreciate some thoughts on this. I'm creating an RfC now so we can hopefully discuss it in an orgnaised manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. There is no way out of this. You win. The process will grow until we have a mini-RfA, but I am through resisting it, since I cannot get anywhere. I'm out.--Doc^g 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc, we both know that implying that I win isn't the best way out of this. I'm interested in improving your cat idea, maybe to take over the whole system - it would be a simple process with little bureaucracy and it could well work. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My cat idea will not work in the end. As long as you have 1400 people with the power to grant and ungrant using any criteria, you will need rules, guidelines, and process. I'm not joking when I say that mini-RfA is inevitable, indeed it is neccessary under this system. The only possible way out is autoconfirmation - but there will never be a genuine consensus for any change. So that's it. I will continue to grant rollback on request, until eventually I am instructed not to. But other than this, I want nothing more to do with this. My head is tired of connecting with a brick wall.--Doc^g 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! See: Wikipedia_talk:Rollback_for_non-administrators#Developer_dictatorship. I'm not sure there's a coup against consensus (I'd be the first to scream bloody murder if you convince me that there is). It looks like the devs are pretty relaxed about the whole thing, and don't mind which way the community decides. This should hopefully make you feel somewhat less desperate at least. :-)

What we do see is the fact that the wikipedia community has become somewhat dysfunctional. I actually predicted roughly this outcome the moment people started suggesting this kind of course of action.

I guess our acculturation issues are only getting worse (no WP:AGF, nor concepts on appropriate application of consensus) , suggesting that the project namespace is not serving its function very well either at the moment. In fact, I see very few people interested in acculturation, while at the same time the flux of people coming and leaving is only growing larger. :-/

Oops, I was supposed to be cheering you up. Well, the upsideis that I think this situation is more the fault of the wikipedia community, which means that things are actually within our remit (and hopefully ability) to solve it too... with a little luck. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• For all the times I disagree with you Kim, sometimes only you have the ability to be so right it makes me want to cry. Hiding T 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Well, I'd like to get the rollback feature you offer on my talkpage. Thank you very much! Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to request rollback privileges.--Father Goose (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wooooo!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For always helping users, with great effect. Plus, you haven't had once since May (apparently :P) Rudget. 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I thought it was useful to have this reference so I put it back. Sup? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Noor_Aalam

The user who nominated "Right to Resist" brought this up at the MfD but I moved the discussion to his talk page. User:Noor_Aalam has multiple controversial (to say the least) userboxes posted, however they aren't transcluded but rather consist of raw code. Examples include calls for independence of palestine, chechniya, tibet, and others. I suspect that these were previously-deleted userboxes, but I can't prove it as I wouldn't know how to look for them. The user's posted quotes also imply a support of terrorrism. If it's appropriate I'd like to ideally nominate the whole page for deletion, but I thought I'd get your take on this first. Thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 11:07, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

This is not a fight you can win. I'm afraid I've no interest in getting dragged into a userbox/userbox kerfuffle. Sorry.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had two userboxes deleted from my user space, both I believe speedily deleted by you: Tibeten independence and the right to resist. Normally, I wouldn't take umbrage; however, I have seen no clear evidence aside from one certain user (mentioned at the mfd, I believe) whose actions I have not checked into. I would like to appeal these actions, for a couple of reasons:

• Evidence of divisiveness is low, so far as I know, and is contained within the user space.
• It potentially allows editors and admins to know about others' intents. I believe this increases transparency and lessens editor paranoia.
• The speedy deletion of userboxes messes with editors user-page, and I'm sure that in the minds of many this looks like admin abuse as our personal and political views are whittled down while other's opinions are not. And, aside from some policy set, there will never be userboxes that do not act as a source of contention, tacit or otherwise.
• Assuming good faith on the part of editors to make good contributions to the topics that concern them is not mutually exclusive with their views, whether they wear them on their sleeves or not. AGF first!

I would like to contest this, but I don't know where or how or even if. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I have deleted anything from your userspace. If I'm wrong please point it out to me, and I will be happy to review my action. As to your rationale, that it is good to "know about others' intents", I might agree. However, you can do that without making divisive statements - simply typing "I am interested in editing articles on the Iraq war" is much better - or even "I have a strong anti-Bush point of view, please let me know if my politics gets in the way of me being a neutral editor". Because others do contentious things, does not mean that it is good to do them. Forget about rights and policy for a minute, and ask yourself what helps you to make a better contribution to a neutral encyclopedia - I doubt shouting proudly about political views (whatever they might be) in colourful boxes, can be justified if you do that. Experienced wikipedians tend think highest of editors who leave their politics at the door. Anyway, you can contest deletions at WP:DRV if you want, but as I say, ask yourself if you really really need to so first. Even if the deleting admin is wrong, and policy is on your side, that does not mean that it is helpful to pursue the issue.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and I do agree (mostly) with your opinion (although I'd argue semantically that said userbox implies certain opinions anyway, e.g., I have a strong anti-bush POV, although that would be an unfair assumption). Nevertheless, I hold my reservations and have commented such on MfD. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

My mistake (the Arbitary break section I mean). Thought it was relevant. Do you think this discussion is still aimed on the userbox? Rudget. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to question a block, first discuss it with the blocking admin. If that doesn't satisfy you, then report the matter on WP:ANI. Don't go flagging it up in other places, it may look as if you are trying to stoke drama and raise the temperature.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

How would we go about stating that the community has to declare a consensus before a dev can turn on a feature? Should software features from now on need to be requested by crats before a dev can turn it on? Or is that too unwieldy? Or should I give up even this path? I just want to avoid this all over agin. Hiding T 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not where everyone agrees - but it is where most people agree and most of the rest accept that there is an agreement. Personally, I'd not want paperwork, just simply say that if there's doubt devs should consult some experienced users who are not terribly involved in the discussion - I'm happy for them to ask crats, arbs, or just clued people - certainly not take the word of one of the key proponents.--Doc^g 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hi Doc, I denied his request for rollback on the basis of the edit warring block a little over a month ago, not your block for something else. Can you please reconsider giving the rights. Viridae^Talk 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd still have granted them. If he abuses them, they are easily removed.--Doc^g 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, can I get rollback, please? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has beaten me to to.--Doc^g 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion on WP:Spoiler

I do consider the edit contentious for a very simple reason: the consensus finally reached at WT:Spoiler after several months of discussion was to include spoiler warnings, but in a much more limited manner than previously. The original tag was deleted in a contentious RfD (particularly given the consensus that had been reached), but the current fiction tag was decided on as a sufficient alternate (indeed, this solution enjoyed even greater consensus than the previous agreement). WP:SPOILER is in a state of flux, however, now that the current fiction tag was deleted (for unrelated reasons). Some of the anti-warning people have taken advantage of this (and the other side's propensities for waiting to have all their ducks in a row before taking action) by pretending that there never was consensus for including spoiler warnings and have made the project page appear as if it is redundant to WP:NDT, but it is not. As soon as I can write up my summary of the issues and their resolution, as well as figure out how to create a replacement tag (I've never made a template before), the page will be updated to reflect actual consensus. Thank you for your time. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That an editor has "proposed merger" is not contentious - it is factual. Whether the merger should go ahead may be contentious and you can discuss that on the talk page.--Doc^g 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from your edit summary: "as per request on talk page, If this is contentions [sic], let me know and I will self-revert." I found it contentious, and I let you know. So, assuming good faith, I expected you to self-revert. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Leykis

Leaving aside that edit warring is always wrong, was I wrong to insist on removing those "further reading" links until there was an article there that they could support? It seemed to me that having all those articles with uncomplimentary titles was as much a BLP violation as having unreferenced allegations in the article text.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Best take this to talk. Since the article is a BLP, I have protected at the version omitting the disputed material. But you need to present your case on the talk page, UncleG is a reasonable person.--Doc^g 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I try to be reasonable as well. I'll take it there: thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more Dicks....

In honor of your recent accusation of harrassment by Dezidor, I have bestowed several more dicks upon your userpage. Cheers! Edit Centric (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to have something to piss about with ;) --Doc^g 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I had a mouthful of coffee right about the same time I read your response, couldn't stop coughing for three minutes! Good on ya! Edit Centric (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as external links

Hi Doc. I noticed you replaced two external links to http://www.theedinburghblog.co.uk/days-out-from-edinburgh/fish-and-chips-from-the-anstruther-fish-bar/04-22-2007/index.html on the Anstruther Fish Bar article. Blogs are not normally considered good sources or external links, so I am curious to know why you consider not one but two links of this nature to be essential in the article. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using them as sources. There's not a lot of information about the subject and the blogs provide further information and pictures. And it is a pretty established blog. Can you tell me why you think they are detrimental?--Doc^g 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." --John (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I support that as a general rule. But in this instance, does the link help or hinder the reader. Oh, and it is a recognised blog that's been quoted in the media - it isn't a mouth off place - it is basically an on-line tourist and review guide, it's just called a "blog" .--Doc^g 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one link could be justified, but do we need two? --John (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are not both pages relevant? Unfortunately, there's not a central page on the subject I can link to.--Doc^g 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wright

Is op cit, by you I presume. I think I've asked previously for confirmation of which edn is being used. Is p70 in the 1st edn & p.106 in the 4th of 1978/88. Actually they differ on Wright much less than I expected. I will try to add but you are usually different systems from those I'm used to. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Added Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Heliac and rollbacks

Since you granting this user rollback, you may wish to review his/her use of it. They have taken to removing comments to talk pages[1] and other questionable edits. Pairadox (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#soft_on_vandalism.3F

East718 has removed Heliac's rollback [2]

Sorry, Doc. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback plea

Hi, Doc. When you have a moment, could you look me over and consider granting me the power of rollback? Thanks. MURGH ^disc. 04:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems youre on a break so nevermind. Cheers. MURGH ^disc. 10:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

eo:Charlotte Stuart

Hi Doc,

I'm pleased to tell you that the Esperanto translation of your nice article is now complete. It should be promoted to featured status by saturday and, from then on, appear on our main page for a whole week. Keep up the great work ! Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's rather flattering.--Doc^g 23:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for providing me with the rollback facility. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is RfA always like that now? I must say I was shocked, I haven't looked closely at it for some time. Relata refero (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

opposing people who are popular with the anti-vandalism crowd will always be rough.--Doc^g 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't like my dick?

Sorry about that I just couldn't resist. You'd think I'd be a bit more mature. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Martin is no more of a dick than Henry VIII of England was, he's a Henry. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Yup, only pure dicks here ;) --Doc^g 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FA

Congratulations on getting John Michael Wright to FA! Your hard work paid off with an easy FAC! Awadewit | talk 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the assistance and encouragement. I'm plotting my next already.--Doc^g 09:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your support and comments - Joseph Priestley House made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see this

I'm sorry to see you've taken on making the calls about who's welcome here and who isn't. Good afternoon. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

I call it as I see it. I called Tony's remarks about you unacceptable, and in the same breath I call Geogre's inflamed rhetoric unacceptable. Any fair-minded person would. The difference is that Tony is now willing to admit the harm caused and try to avoid it in future (I've done the same at times), whilst Geogre does nothing but self-righteous fuming. I can put up with many things, bit self-righteous hypocrisy really needles me. Sorry to see this, but such people should either mend their ways, or depart. I'd rather they did the former.--Doc^g 15:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to step back again

Doc, I appreciate your points with respect to what Geogre wrote; but removing his comments, and Nandesuka's, is not working toward solution, it is imposing your interpretation of others' words onto the community. For many of us, "quisling" means 'person who collaborates' but the Nazi overtones have long since burned off the word; it is nowhere near the insult you are taking on behalf of someone else. "Victorian" doesn't necessarily mean quaint. It often means hypocritical and deliberately complex and arcane - think 20 pieces of silverware per person and the structure of the social hierarchy. I don't understand the purpose of your removal of Nandesuka's comments from the same page - as the words in that comment were not directed at any specific person, and are certainly no worse than several of the other comments being made. You need to understand that editors who are primarily authors take offense every time someone says "go back to writing an encyclopedia" and it is the most tasteless verbal insult that administrators can make to them. It is a serious and arrogant personal insult if directed at a single editor, because it pointedly suggests the only value that editor has to the encylopedia is to write it.

They're all big boys. Let someone else have this debate with them. I don't entirely agree with either Geogre's or Nandesuka's comments, but I also refuse to take offense on behalf of others with respect to them. I do respect your desire to de-escalate things, but you're still a party in this too, and perhaps not the best person to try to do this. If you want to continue to do that, then I suggest you return to the MfD and remove Aza Toth's comment about writing an encyclopedia, too. Risker (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only a party because I have been trying to mediate this for weeks. But, you can relax. I am through with assuming good faith, and I am certainly through with Geogre. There is absolutely no excuse for his behaviour, and I have nothing but contempt for anyone who tries to pardon it. Sure, people make mistakes and post in haste (I've done it more than once), but that never once has there been any humility from Geogre et al, never any consideration that their remarks might be less than helpful. They hound and complain about those they see as having fault and then behave with in an even more appalling manner themselves. It stinks of hypocrisy. I've been mug long enough to think this was about people with the project's best interests at heart seeing things differently. It is not. It is people who delight in hostilities and polemic, firing off rhetorical volleys and sod the project. Enough. They have no wish to change, and so they can leave, or wait until arbcom's patience finally snaps and banns them. I will converse with such nastiness no longer.--Doc^g 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Arbcom can stamp its precocious little foot all it likes, throw spitful little tantrums with its proposed sanctions and carry out vendettas (a la Bauder) but its current members will never be respected again. Giano (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have criticised Bauder's remarks as unhelpful. But really, Geogre's remarks are at least as bad. I personally think arbcom are doing ok. The only question now is: who is interested in increasing collaboration and de-escalating the conflicts? The rest should go away.--Doc^g 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom decided to open this case - the Arbcom could, if it wanted, close this case. You tell me Doc? You are the expert with the answers, I only know what I see, and beleive me you don't want me to put that into words. Giano (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The silly edit war is beside the point. The key issue is that dispute resolution only works if everyone is willing to work towards it, and willing to be self-critical and compromise. I am finding it difficult to believe that you are desiring a resolution to this dispute that does not involve a total capitulation of everyone who agrees with you. You attack and assume the worst of everyone who fails to buy your worldview. Yesterday it was the opponents on the field, today it is the referee. Now, tell me in all honesty, how does this end? If arbcom closed this case without remedy, you and I both know that you will be back before arbcom within weeks. You will push and push somewhere else. Can you see (do you want to see?) any solution that isn't your being banned, and banned with the maximum disruption to the project you can engineer. Tell me I'm wrong, and tell me you are willing to be a little self-critical and see that maybe, whatever points you have, these are not righteous tactics? No, I don't expect a reply I will like.--Doc^g 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This case was opened out of pure spite. How did you realistically expect it to proceed? Giano (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, and others are suppose to assume your good faith?--Doc^g 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to rmember being savaged by all and sundry during the Troubles Arb case for pointing out the obvious to those who did not wish to see it, and a few months later lo and behold [3]. Perhpaps once in a while you might just consider the fact that I am usually right. Giano (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not follow that case. Tell you what, I'll muse on the assertion that you are often right, if you'll agree to muse on the assertion that you are at least sometimes quite wrong, and that at least some of this mess is of your own making. Any chance of any critical self-reflection?--Doc^g 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course the solution to all these problems and for Wikipedia to be a harmonious place would have been for me to be on the Arbcom, where I would have done a good job, for the editors of this encyclopedia but that was just too much for Bauder and his like to stomach - so you have the failing Arbcom you deserve instead. Giano (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, come off it. You mean, if you are not running the show it is obviously crap. You don't believe this paranoid garbage, so why ask me to.--Doc^g 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is certainly crap at the moment isn't it? Has it not occerred to you that there is a reason they opened this case, has it not occurred to you there is a reason they have not closed it, the great problem is that the target was once very visibly and obviously me (remember the original name and the obscene speed at which some of them accepted) and now many people are seeing it for what it is a nasty spite ridden case, Bauder's last fling, that should be concentrated in IRC not me, but that is not something that their great mates and James Forrester will permit. Or am I wrong on that one too? Giano (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they will ban you, eventually. But not now. But, no, they don't want to. They genuinely wish to find a way to minimise disruption, you unfortunately are forcing their hand. But I think you know that. What happens next is entirely up to you, but I think you know that too.--Doc^g 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think I shall write an article next. :) --Doc^g 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Main Page controversy

Have you seen the other Main Page controversy that occurred recently? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary for my summary of it. I'd be interested in finding out where Betacommand and East718 discussed their actions. I can't find it on-wiki, so I presume e-mail or IRC. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't see what it has to do with #admins. It could have happened anywhere, and even if it did happen there, so what? If you removed that venue it wouldn't prevent it happening somewhere else. You can't regulate poor judgement by blaming channels.--Doc^g 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But you can work against the idea that all is hunky-dory, and try and get more oversight. And ultimately the only way people will get the message is if a strong message is sent out that off-wiki discussions are in no way an excuse for poor judgment. Continual use of off-wiki discussion resulting in poor judgment, and failure to ask for input on-wiki, is just bad, full-stop. With the usual BLP and privacy caveats. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty simple really. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If the action is bad, then if you can point to an on-wiki consensus, that will serve as mitigation. If you can't you are on your own, regardless of whether you consulted in IRC, e-mail, the local pub, with a ouija board, or not at all. Indeed the focus on what is said on IRC is harmful, because it implies it is significant: it is not, and should not be.--Doc^g 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So why do some people use it so much? Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many good reasons. BLP discussion. Sanity checks. Sounding off. Problem solving. Asking for advice and getting a quick response. An easy place to have a general wiki-philosopy discussion (simmillar to the mailing list) and, to be honest, a lot of harmless nonsense and social chit-chat. Come in and see. Most also happens in other IRC channels, the advantage of this one is the spectrum of view, but yet the absence of trolls, clueless people. --Doc^g 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MFD query

Doc - why did you move my comment on the MfD? It was a simple bald fact, added - on a potentially hot page rather than reverting the closure. I think Ryan got the consensus about right, however - as a chanop there's the appearance of a COI. Shouldn't we be up front about these things? --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit these pages after closure. That's what the talk page is for. I suspect you were trying to stoke a drama, if the close is good leave it. If not, deal with the content.--Doc^g 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you were trying to stoke a drama - Oh great, thanks Doc that's just peachy! When have you seen me stoking drama before?!? here? or here?. People with vested interests in the channel acting inappropriately was part of the acrimony. Better to declare your COI and let the content speak for itself - but be upfront about it. Put it this way - I'd like my statement of fact reinstating under Ryan's closure notice - or I'll revert the closure and get someone uninvolved to close it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To revert a closure you think is "about right" would be a WP:POINT violation, and utter dickery. If you have concerns that Ryan shouldn't have closed it, then the least dramatic approach would be to quietly discus it with him. So, since you say you don't want to stoke drama, I take it you did that first before adding a blatantly provocative notice to the MfD? Yes? --Doc^g 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not dickery Doc, it's about the appearance of propriety. I've taken it up with Ryan. be cool - I'm not the frickin' enemy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever.--Doc^g 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Doc, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Hey Doc,

I need a little help or advice. There has been a problem on the page -- American Consumer Institute

There has been a simple article on this organization (its a nonprofit think tank) and users have added cites to it over the last several months. The artiole was improving.

As with a lot of these think tanks, there are always activists (or sock puppets) writing blogs and editorials that disagree with the organizations position. However, invariably the attacks become ad hominem in nature. And, once a piece is published on the web, it is easily repeated in other blogs and editorials, and referred to as if it were fact.

Recently, someone (Binarybits) has added these editorials and blogs to criticize the American Consumer Institute. These changes were changed back a couple of days ago, but Binarybits did an UNDO. So, yesterday, I (PROFEDIT) did an undo of Binarybits changes. There is no making headway with this person. I pointed out that the citation they added had the word editorial in it, but they put it back in the article.

Is is possible to protect or revert? I think the piece needs to be as factual as possible and not be an opinion piece. Binarybits changes appear to be unconstructive additions.

I plan to UNDO the changes today (5 Feb).

Can you help or provide me with advice.

Thanks and Best Regards Profedit (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the advice at dispute resolution.--Doc^g 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor reviews

Doc, do you ever do editor reviews? Another editor, User:Undead warrior, has asked me for feedback which I've given. I think you have stricter criteria for supporting RfA noms then I. If you are available, he might benefit form your feed back. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he'd like what I have to say. It would start with getting POV off his userpage and then using it for constructing a list of articles to which he'd made significant contributions, rather than a list of bands that he likes. :( --Doc^g 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the type of feedback he needs. Better it come 3,0000 edits before an RfA than during it. If you decide to review, please let me know and I'll let him know. I appreciate your honesty and high standards. If he can meet them, he'll stand a better chance. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my standards are not that high, just a little different. I support unpopular people too. I like some content editing (not necessarily that much), a clear commitment to NPOV and freeuse, a sensitivity to BLP, a caution about undoing admins without discussion, and some basic maturity (in attitude not age). I care not about edit counts, edit summaries, length of time since previous RfA, or marginal incivility.--Doc^g 09:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)