User talk:Doc glasgow/Feb 07

User:Georgegeorgegeorge
As you are involved in blocking persistent vandals, may I bring the above user to your attention; s/he has made at least three vandalistic edits this morning (see Greece, Queen, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) which I have reverted. Walton monarchist89 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above - user has now been blocked by another admin. Walton monarchist89 11:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly ignored as requested, thanks. --Docg 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Toomanyboxes
Yep, we do. I believe it's also in BJAODN somewhere.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ;) --Docg 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arkaig
Hi Doc - re Loch Arkaig's ill-gotten hoard: Here are a few comments. I didn't want to change them as the current version may be deliberate.
 * Specie links to a dab page
 * 1,200,000 livres plural?
 * 'but a good deal still remained when the Prince caught up with Cluny' - how do we know - did Cluny have it in the cave?
 * highland fugitive = Highland fugitive?
 * Ref 12 - surely Hodder & Stoughton?
 * A pedant might grumble about the style of the refs.
 * Good luck with the GA Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please feel free to improve it as you are able
 * Specie links to a dab page - there is no more precise page extant - and the dab does explain the term
 * 1,200,000 livres plural? - fixed thanks
 * 'but a good deal still remained when the Prince caught up with Cluny' - how do we know - did Cluny have it in the cave? : I've clarified this and removed duplications - see what you think
 * highland fugitive = Highland fugitive? - yes
 * Ref 12 - surely Hodder & Stoughton? - yes, by bad
 * A pedant might grumble about the style of the refs. - I'm not hot on referencing conventions, if you can fix these please do.

--Docg 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Loch Arkaig treasure, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John Murray of Broughton, was selected for DYK!
That's 2, Doc!  Nish kid 64  23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 actually.--Docg 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The content posted has defamatory material against an individual.

Good job on Free Church of Scotland (post 1900)
I thought your last edit on this article was a very clever way to keep the POV out of the article, but still placate the insistent editor who kept adding it. Thank-you. Jerry lavoie 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd Calderon AfD
Hi, I see you closed the second AfD for the J.P. Calderon article. Your notation on the talk page links to the first AfD rather than the 2nd. I wasn't sure if it would be all right for me to update it so I wanted to alert you. Otto4711 14:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad, please feel free to fix it.--Docg 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Doc,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?
When closing this AfD, why did you delete, even though the nominator had changed his/her vote to Speedy Keep? I assume this was a mistake on your part. Walton monarchist89 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, my bad I missed his change of mind. Closure now reversed.--Docg 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. Thanks for your quick response. Walton monarchist89 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs
Any expansion on how you came to the delete decision? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first it is a recreation after a unanimous afd. And in the second AfD there's a fairly clear consensus, with not irrational rational arguments to delete.--Docg 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory on the latter. I may be DRVing, so I'll let you know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stay civil and make no personal attacks. Thank you so much.
I just found this and I think it's hilarious. May I, however, propose adding the great idea to use warning templates and to cite any convenient policies whenever necessary, and better now than never. After all, one template says more than a thousand words, and it's a great way to get the last word in case the other bastard just won't concede for good. — Kncyu38  tell/ask  14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, feel free to improve it.--Docg 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict. I was about to post the following. Feel free to (ab)use it anyway you like:


 * ''Furthermore, it can be especially helpful to point out flaws in your opponent's comments, he will eventually do the same to you. If you feel that there is something wrong with his arguments, call him a liar and POV pusher - everybody knows it's true, anyway. And never hesitate to denounce his contributions. For all you know, they may as well be vandalism.


 * ''If all else fails, it's generally a great idea to begin using warning templates early on in any argument. Always remember: One template says more than a thousand words. And kindly remind your fellow editor enemy of any convenient policy. Don't bother including diffs, he will understand you anyway. Building an encyclopedia is not about splitting hairs.


 * ''Always bear these helpful ideas in mind, they will give you an edge in every precarious situation you may seek. So stop being the laughing stock who always gives in to flimsy evidence, learn to say no. Don't hesitate any longer to finally claim what's rightfully yours.


 * — Kncyu38  tell/ask  15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-Monarchism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anarcho-Monarchism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Josha 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Humor tag
I think that the humor tag in the article The Last Word was appropriate; many other articles that are just as "obvious" have the tag. And while I don't want to use the Pokemon argument, well, I guess I just did. The satire would still be there, and I don't think it spoils anything. &mdash;ScouterSig 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the tag sucks. Like that idiotic 'spoiler' thing. It certainly adds nothing to it. It is obvious humour and categorised as such. --Docg 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Obvious" is so often overlooked by anyone/everyone. Most other "Wikipedia" namespace articles in the "Wikipedia Humor" category have a humor tag. And I'm not sure what you mean by "that idiotic 'spoiler' thing." &mdash;ScouterSig 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks for a minute that my essay is serious, is too thick to be editing Wikipedia.--Docg 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey hey. Another Jacobite on the mainpage! --Docg 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rutherglen railway station
As you have decided you do not like the SPT Infobox, would you please like to add the information that you have consequently deleted that other editors have added. These include:-
 * Opening/closure information
 * Category:SPT railway stations
 * The station usage (this is usual for many railway stations)
 * The UK station index

If you do not like the tabulation of this information, I look forward to your prose replacement. ==Stewart 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. Infoboxes do not normally replace the practice of putting information into articles - it seems a strange thing for people to do.--Docg 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put a query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland to determine a concencus on the way forward. I know some people prefer prose, and other prefer tabular details. I must admit I am a tabular person, however am not adverse to writing appropriate prose when circumstance dictate. ==Stewart 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Infobox or not, if the info is relevant is must be in the article - not everyone reads silly boxes.--Docg 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reflect over the comments from you and others (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland) and editted the Rutherglen article by providing section headings, including a new section on History. I have also trimmed info from the infobox. I think it is better. Comments please at the project talk page. --Stewart 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted--Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:209.209.140.19
doc g- I dont believe its fair to simply blank User:209.209.140.19 and not set forth the issue that this is an advertising company. Maybe i took it to the wrong place, but blanking it is not the solution. DUBJAY04 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to debate spam on a IP userpage, --Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1992
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians born in 1992. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --- RockMFR 17:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gah. --Docg 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users
Doc, would you mind clarifying your opinion on the above MfD? I'll probably be closing this soon, but I'm not sure what your position is. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, delete. --Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Anstruther Fish Bar, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow--Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Palazzo Muti
I missed you comment on the talk page of the above and have only just seen it. It is very confusing, but somehow trying to explain seems to make it even more so. The two which do get confused are Palazzo Muti and Palazzo Muti Papazzurri especially as Palazzo Muti, was at one stage in its history called "Palazzo Muti Papazzurri" because they were both built by the Muti Papazzurri family. So I have just written a quick stub so people can easily see that Palazzo Muti Papazzurri and the Palazzo Muti are in fact quite different. In spite of a very good Roman tourist sute confusing them. When I'm next in Rome I'll try to take a modern foto of each to prove the difference more precisely. The Mutu lived in by James Stuarti is now also called "Palazzo Muti Papazzurri Balestra" as they Balestra were the last family to own it and lend it their name. Hope this is clear........ Giano 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes. As clear as it apparently gets, anyway. Again well done.--Docg 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK (13 Feb)

 * You're on a roll, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but keeping it up may be hard :) --Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BattleMaster
??? ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found it: !!!. ~ trialsanderrors 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK--Docg 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, others didn't find it and opened a deletion review. Even after pointing this out, they continue to believe it should be overturned. Please swing on by. Deletion review/Log/2007 February 18 GRBerry 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job
Hats off to you for a courageous use of good judgement here: Cheers! Kla'quot 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to comment about a category dispute
Hello, Doc Glasgow! I noticed that you were involved in deleting Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, and since there's a big war breaking out I'd like to invite you to comment here. You're not in trouble or anything, I just want this problem to be done with. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My deletion was endorsed - I don't think I've anything else to say.--Docg 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School
Doc, are you sure about "no consensus" for this one? A very solid majority of the votes were for deletion, and the only real arguments on either side can be summed up as "Schools are notable" and "Middle schools are not notable", as far as I can see. And in the past, ordinary middle schools have generally been judged non-notable on AFD. Regards, Brianyoumans 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. 10 want deletion of all, 6 want something else. 10vs6 not a consensus.--Docg 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachel Carson Middle School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brianyoumans 14:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Groan.--Docg 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You also might want to clean things up, by the way. Both Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School and the Liberty Middle School one were multiple AFDs, and it looks like you only removed the notices and all for the title articles. For Rachel Carson I went through and replaced the AFD notices with delrev notices, but I didn't put anything on the talk pages about the AFD. I'm not contesting your closure of the Liberty Middle School one, but I noticed that that one has the same problem (and I imagine you probably have better tools for doing the grunt work.) --Brianyoumans 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I don't have mass tools. I get around to it, but no time ATM, thanks for what you've already sorted.--Docg 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Vietnamese companies by industry
I would in fact be interested in having this deleted list userfied so that I can categorize the contents, if no one else has taken up the task. Please? --Brianyoumans 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done.--Docg 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You recently deleted this article as a recreation of previously deleted content. Actually, the most recent AFD discussion, Articles for deletion/Globulation 2 (2nd nomination), was closed as "keep"; the logs for this page indicate that it was restored for DRV, and never re-deleted until today. I respectfully request that you restore this page. Thank you. John254 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, sorry, done--Docg 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Body count on 3RR patrol
No worries, Zilla can count to three. Acquire many new skills! Bishzilla | ROAR 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, but for 3RR patrol you have to count to four, which is much more complicated, though this little user is sure that 'zilla could do it. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick RfA > RfC

 * I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New Users
Sorry for reverting you at this page. I'd rather push people to discuss this at the foundation-l list were more people can look in. This would also resolve whether my interpretation of foundation issues is indeed correct. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war with you, but I rather resent you reverting me. Not everyone is on the mailing list, so I don't see how that's necessarily a wider audience. If the foundation say it is a foundation issue then mark it as rejected by the foundation. But the page you are citing does not at all support your allegation. It ways no editing restrictions on non-logged in users. The proposal doesn't do that. In any case, we already restrict article creation to logged in users, so I can't see how you can argue that restrictions on article creation are not allowed.--Docg 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discouraged section
Hello Doc, that section was added as a stub... having you been following the WT:UP discussion? 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks awful, if a whole load of things are added to it, it can be broken off later. But then a whole load more things would be instruction creep. No need for a stub unless we envisage a whole lot more instructions, do we?--Docg 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well relative to the storm the thing caused one thing was very evident and that was that nearly all views agreed that simulation should be discourarged. Without the additional section this new addition finds itself under a heading that says, "What can I not have on my userpage?" which is a bit confusing. It is perhaps a minor point and your CREEP concerns are valid but my editing was what appeared to be most in accord with what appeared to be a community consensus. Cheers. 11:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It think there's no problem in listing this in the 'no allowed' section, as long as the fact it is discouraged rather than banned is clear. Readers are generally intelligent enough to get it.--Docg 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's more of a problem that readers are too intelligent and will use anything they can to wikilawyer.  If it's directly under a header that says "...not allowed...", that fact will be used as a reason for deleting the banner from someone's page and then hitting them with vandalism warnings when they put it back and finally ending up with an AN/I fight or wheel war.  I think the current case has shown us that you don't even have to be as explicit as putting it under a header that says not to do something to create this situation.  There's no consensus for considering it "not" allowed and only enough consensus for discouragement.  The same already happens for deleting valid user warnings from talk pages and that doesn't have a page for the person who sees someone remove them to point to and say "see it's under a header that says 'not allowed'".  ju66l3r 16:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So we say 'is allowed but discouraged' - and point it out to the wikilawyers.--Docg 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Jack Schaap entry
Doc glasgow, Why was the Jack Schaap article deleted? There was a consesnsus (sp?) and not firm either way. Seems rather sudden. NovumTestamentum 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews
You recently deleted List of Peruvian Jews at Afd. However, I noticed that non-trivial content from that article was merged into List of Latin American Jews prior to deletion. Can you restore the deleted article as a (protected) redirect so the edit history can be maintained? Thanks in advance. --- RockMFR 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the one who conducted the merge (of 8 names out of 100+). I did not merge content from any of the other minor lists (they all essentially reproduced sections of the main List of Peruvian Jews).  -- Black Falcon 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the category that contained all these lists is now empty: Category:Lists of Jewish Peruvians. I'm not sure whether this will speedy-able in 4 days as WP:CSD seems to require that the category "has never contained anything other than links to parent categories". Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide. -- Black Falcon 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a redirect as particularly useful: who'd search for 'List of Peruvian Jewish x'. However, I'm willing to restore the history of any article on request, for the purposes of merging, if anyone indicates that to be their intention. Is there a concrete, rather than a hypothetical need for the history? I'm afraid I'm not up on category rules, but I'm willing to speedy it if there are no objections.--Docg 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the page to which I was referring was List of Peruvian Jews, not the derivative "List of Peruvian Jewish X" pages. I could, of course, create the redirect myself, but a user noted that the history of pages from which content has been merged should be preserved as redirects under GFDL guidelines.  I'm not overly familiar with GFDL guidelines, so I assumed this to be true.
 * As for the category, I certainly have no objections to its speedy deletion, but I can just as easily take it to WP:CFD in 2-3 days. -- Black Falcon 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's funny is in my vain attempt to try to implement IZAK's view on List of Chilean Jews by moving all the red links to the talk page and trying to organize the sourced ones, I was reverted and later "warned" like a vandal by User:Runcorn. It seems even cleaning up the list isn't what is wanted. Usedup 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Peruvian Jews. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Newport 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks.--Docg 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Loch Arkaig treasure
You left a message on my talk page but I think you've got the wrong person. Might it have been meant for DrKiernan? MLilburne 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Sorry to trouble you.--Docg 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought...
...because we're going to be battling this as a community until it's addressed, wouldn't it be a better idea to open a DRV subpage, sprotect the bugger, make a suffrage point (100 edits and 3 months as of today, for instance), hash it out, and be done with it? Yeah, it's unorthodox, but the discussion at AN seemed to indicate that more than a couple established, respected editors here saw value in having the article. If the deletion is endorsed, then at least people have had their say, and if not, we know where the community stands? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's what'll happen, but I want no part of it. The community plays its games on notability and inclusion/exclusion and the slugfests happen. But ultimately, whether some garage band/school/church or pokemon gets an article or doesn't is not of any existential significance. You or I may be more or less inclisionist than the community - but the community wins - and we shrug. This is different. I have an ethical problem here. And it is that sometimes wikipedians don't stop and think that there is a real world out there, and with the power of this media comes some human responsibility. Hosting unnecessary articles on unfortunate non-entities, and then subjecting them to endless comment, which is permanently recorded all over the internet, is sick. It is wrong. Sinful, even. I want no part of it. If the community by some strange chance concludes otherwise, then the community can go to hell.--Docg 01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda funny that you call my attempts to make sure people's voices are heard disruptive, but not Sam's early closure. You know I respect you, Doc, but that comment was way, WAY out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, if we are not careful, the discussion herein splinters into wheel wars and conflicting results. Sam closed the DRV - I think rightly as the result was clear (even if you don't think it is right). His closure is being reviewed on ANI. If he's not got support, he'll get reversed. A second DRV will solve nothing - the result is disruptive, even if that is not the intention.--Docg 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An easy way to not wheel war is to not do disruptive closes to begin with. If you were concerned with that, you'd simply revert the controversial close to begin with and not force other people's hands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the the better thing to do is to discuss the close. If you have support, it will be reversed.--Docg 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, as if that's going to happen. The better thing to do is to not be disruptive to start.  I'm appalled that you're supporting it, honestly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuking List of Internet phenomena
Wasn't that a bit drastic? Many of the people listed had articles, as well; do you plan to submit them for deletion? -- Jay Maynard 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PLEASE STOP NUKING THE ARTICLE WITHOUT DISCUSSION! -- Jay Maynard 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to replace any item if you can supply a reliable source. But WP:BLP requires the removal of any item on any individual, which may be negative, and is not properly sourced. There is no discussion to have.--Docg 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I ask again: are you going to go to all of the linked articles you're nuking from this list? If not, why nuke this article? This seems like major vandalism, not WP:BLP or anything else. The least you could have done is warned folks you were about to rip the very guts out of the article on its talk page. If I knew where to complain, I would, but 1) I'm powerless, and 2) you're an admin, so any complaint is likely to be dismissed out of hand. -- Jay Maynard 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is fairly simple, we err on the side of removal with biographical information. If you can provide a reliable source, you can replace the information. But we discuss from the place where we can be sure we're not libelling anyone, rather than the other way about.--Docg 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I objected to nuking entries linked to other articles. If there's an article for that subject, then WP:RS should apply there, and if the article is nuked, then nuke the entry here (though that destroys the usefulness of the article as a place to put Internet memes that don't rate articles of their own - one of the reasons it survived an AfD). As it stands, however, this article will be reduced to a skeleton, and that's not useful at all. -- Jay Maynard 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that any entry that points to an article should be restored, and intend to do this unless you give me a good reason not to - and threats of blocking aren't good enough. That's just using your admin powers in a content dispute. -- Jay Maynard 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One more question: What about an entry linked to an article with sources? Must those sources be repeated in the list? Why? Isn't that horribly wasteful? -- Jay Maynard 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note that your threat to block anyone who reverts your destruction is extremely intimidating. -- Jay Maynard 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is intended to intimidate people into not breaching policy, so I don't have to block them. But it is better to warn people off, rather than to have to block them.--Docg 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That assumes your application of policy is infallibly correct. -- Jay Maynard 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As ever! Check WP:BLP - uncited negative material gets removed. Tell me where I erred? --Docg 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the assumption that merely having an entry in that list was negative. Many were nothing of the sort, including mine - which I originally wrote, and someone elsechanged to be less negative. -- Jay Maynard 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if it is encyclopedic, a reliable source shouldn't be a problem, and perhaps you should avoid WP:AUTO--Docg 21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote it before I knew about WP:AUTO. Others have since validated it, and I haven't touched it since. (That's why I haven't replaced it, even though there are reliable sources in the Jay Maynard article.) What I'm objecting to is the huge amount of work you destroyed, and the huge amount of redundant work you're demanding to make the article useful again... in fact, I'm seriously considering saying "screw it!" and submitting it for AfD: it's not likely to ever be useful again, thanks to you. -- Jay Maynard 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a good citation must be given after a negative assertion. Because, fundamentally, we are not saying x is true, we are saying 'x is true according to this source'. To make a negative assertion on one article and suppose that it is attributed on another is quite unacceptable.--Docg 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I think you have this very backwards. Anything on ths list, pointing to / summarizing an existing other WP article, should not be removed from the list due to BLP. If there are BLP concerns with the article then deal with it there. If there are BLP concerns with the summary on the list, it should be cleaned up. But deleting it off the list is... just completely wrong. If we can have an article about it, we can list it under the parent phenomenon. If we shouldn't have an article on it, the article should go away, but start at that end not the list. This just feels so so wrong to me. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. No. The List didn't just contain a list - it made statements about the individuals concerned. BLP states all such must be sourced. The onus is not on me to fish the sources from elsewhere and to check they say what they are claimed to say. The onus is on the one who wishes to keep the statements to source them and then replace them. BLP is deliberately designed that way to make sure we err on the side of exclusion not inclusion. If it was that easy to source the statement on the list, then those that wished them kept should have done that and replaced them rather then fighting me. We've have our policy this way so that busy people like me that specialise in BLP enforcement can do our job without let or hinderance. Bulk replacing material removed under BLP without sourcing it is uite unacceptable - and the party was well warned.--Docg 09:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue is also under discussion at Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. Eluchil404 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Em, yes, I know. I put it there? --Docg 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/mess/block/etc.
I'll respond to the RfC, and try and show my side tomorrow due to a lack of time on my end. I can already say that I'm very surprised by how I worded the block, as it certainly was not a "content" dispute. Did I agree with you on the discussion between you two? Actually, yes, you were right that there were violations of WP:BLP. However, I felt that a block when he was adding them back and gradually adding sources was a bit harsh. Then again, i was even more hasty in unblocking him, and NYB basically sums up my mistake well. To me it became a question of whether WP:COI and WP:BLOCK are overriden by WP:BLP. Consensus clearly shows that this is the case, and perhaps ym actions were wrong. I would have really liked you to go to RfC first as opposed to blocking, but you at least sent it where it belonged in the end, and hoefully the matter can be put to rest when the RfC closes (as Jmaynard has apparently left anyway). In a nutshell, I should've explained by unblock far better if I was actually going to do it, and I apologize with the way I handled it.-- Wizardman 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. However, reinserting BLP violations with the promise of future sourcing is clearly unacceptable. BLP violations must be immediately removed. My initial removal, rollback and block were not separate actions, but all part of the work of enforcing BLP. I was not acting as editor then admin, I was acting as BLP enforcer with all the tools at my disposal. Could I have RfCd rather then blocking? Absolutely not. We don't talk whilst BLP violations sit, we remove them then talk. Since the discussion indicated that maynard had no respect for this, a block was necessary, the only only sure way of preventing him replacing the stuff. I'd have been happy with him being unblocked (indeed I've had done it myself) as soon as it was clear he 'got it' - but the discussion on his userpage, indicated the opposite. With hindsight, it may have looked better had I got another admin to block, however my usual channel to seek speedy and discrete assistance with BLP things is IRC. And unfortunately you know what crap I'd have taken had I started a discussion in the admins' channel with "hey, will someone consider blocking an established wikipedian for me?". Since the tools to do this job are already limited - I cannot accept further limits. Faced with the same circumstances, I would probably do the same thing again.--Docg 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONG
This could get tedious and repetitive, especially now that people allege that it's used a lot in AFD but refuse to prove that. Perhaps we should drop the page on MFD?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, even if it does get cited a lot on AfD, that would be irrelevant. Guidelines need to reflect consensus, this one doesn't, since there is none. Unfortunately, I suspect MfD would 'speedy keep'. We could have a poll to demonstrate the lack of consensus, but I really hate polls.--Docg 12:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

John P Doll
Agreed about personal information. I think you targeted the wrong person though. I wasn't the one who added the kids' names or his wife's last name. It does seem reasonable to write about the guy's background and legislative agenda, both of which you deleted though. I didn't add those things either, actually. I have no knowledge of the guy. I only improved wording, wikified, and reverted vandalism. --Appraiser 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry misread the history. However, the background and agenda need citations if they are included.--Docg 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV
So now we're dicussing it in two places at once? – Steel 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, just noticed your close. What a mess this whole thing is. – Steel 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
Unless you are acting for the foundation do not delete this article again. There is nothing wrong with allowing debate in the proper venues.Geni 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree the debate was going on on DRV - lots of people had taken their time to respond and there was a growing consensus to endorse the activity. Someone then 'out of process' and against consensus, who didn't like that closed the debate and started another one elsewhere. Ridiculous and disruptive. But I guess you'll not criticise that now, will you? My action in reversing disruption was perfectly sane. And I'll do it again if need be.--Docg 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone took the article to AfD and someone else closed the DRV because of it (which is what we do). – Steel 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but I see no reason no take it to afd when so many people have already given their opinion at DRV - it looks like forum shopping. Anyway, how do you take a deleted article to AfD. Why did anyone reverse a deletion that was receiving such strong endorsement. If an overturn consensus was gathering at DRV, then closing and relisting would be sensible, but it isn't. --Docg 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I haven't voted on the DRV and don't intend to. It's not worth it for me to get involved in the Wikidrama more than I already have. Anyway, if it was some supposed new user who had voted overturn in the DRV who took it to AfD, then I would agree with you. I don't believe Chacor was forum shopping. Rather, he was trying to calm some of the process wonks down by putting it through the proper process. – Steel 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I should AGF. But, still, I don't see why the whinging of process wonks should trumph the many wikipedians who endorsed the deletion. Encyclopedia > Consensus > Process. --Docg 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the way you rank those three. That said, those who endorsed the DRV were quite capable of resubmitting their opinion (for want of a better phrase) by voting delete in the AfD, so it's not as if they were being silenced or overruled. – Steel 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing was deleted, the deletion was being endorsed - so why did it get undeleted and afd'd. Looks like a case of Process>Concensus>Encyclopedia--Docg 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well don't look at me. I didn't take it there. – Steel 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm just saying....--Docg 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I sounded really moody in that conversation, it wasn't my intention. – Steel 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To let you know, my creation of Daniel Brandt/temp was in good faith and your description of it as disruptive has been noted, is, IMO, simply wrong, and a violation of Assume good faith. People have been pressuring me to take admin actions in this case to arbcom, and I am pondering a decision, SqueakBox 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you intended to disrupt. But when something has been deleted as a 'privacy violation' an is under review on DRV then recreating is has the effect of disruption. Your intentions may well have been excellent. But it is poor practice. Temp files are still publically available as part of wikipedia. If the item was indeed a 'privacy violation' that wouldn't be good. You should have awaited DRV, there was no ungent reason to do otherwise.--Docg 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I havent reverted but how is this article that failed 8 Afd's a privay violation? I simply do not understand how the community feelings can be so ignored, ie the article needs to be restored and afd'd. This whole episode is poor practice. I dont want to disrupt to make a point but do have genuine concerns about both procedure and the future of wikipedia in this case, SqueakBox 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the debate that the community is having on DRV. Irronically, I'm asking you to respect that process and await the community's decision. Again, I apologies for any impression I might have given that I was assuming bad faith on your part. There is obviously differing interpretations here - we await a resolution of the debate.--Docg 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree we should wait on this decision though I do believe it wont of itself resolve anything (the vote is very split). Cheers, SqueakBox 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps. But at least we seem to have some consensus that this is way to resolve this.--Docg 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disgree strongly with that. This is not the wayt to deal with it. It'll be George W. Bush next, SqueakBox 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, George Bush doesn't eat babies quite as often. (I meant a DRV debate was preferable to a wheel war).--Docg 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Grant
I am so pleased that somebody has been able to make a start on a biography of this important and influential man. It has long been my intention to do so, and I have kept on hoping to find time to get around to it - so I'm glad you did!

I may pitch in with suggestions and additions from time to time, which I'm sure you will expect.... Cheers – Agendum 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * it is a wiki, edit the article as you wish. If you want input first, put it on the talk page,--Docg 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration case
By direction of Jimbo Wales, the matter of the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war has been referred to the Arbitration Committee. An arbitration case has been opened at Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war and you have been named as a party. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of your statement
Following up on your question on my talkpage, a more experienced clerk has suggested that party statements can still go on the main case page if they are not too lengthy, so I revise my suggestion accordingly. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I've placed it on the evidence page. Can I leave it for the clerks to order this as they see fit? - But I do think that party statement need to have a prominence over non-parties making comment.--Docg 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the contents I think it's fine where it is, but you might ask Thatcher131 who's the more experienced clerk I mentioned. It is evidence of your state of mind today, so I think it's good as is. Sorry if my suggestion raised any confusion. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox
Here you referred to User:SqueakBox as "Squeezebox". I assume this was unintentional, but given that the later term can be offensive slang, I wanted to point this out to you and ask that you correct it. Dragons flight 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be a cultural thing here. I misread/mistyped his name - that was careless. But this is hardly a 'given', since I've never encountered this as 'offensive slang' before. If offence has been taken, none was intended.--Docg 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As slang it means "vagina". Less offensive than calling someone a "cunt", certainly, but in the same direction.  Dragons flight 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I never realized that ... and I always liked The Who song of the same title ... which, as our article notes, uses the name in a double entendre, but a very different one. Newyorkbrad 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)OK, I'm not aware of the cultural context in which it means that. Unfortunately I'm sure a great number of terms are offensive in some culture or another. We can't possibly avoid them all. Here a 'squeezebox' is a perfectly acceptable term for an accordion. I should be more careful to type usernames correctly.--Docg 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to but in! Complete bolox "squeezebox" is not female genitalia in any language. I speak many variant form of English and American and have never heard squeezebox being anything other than what it is - a foul musical instrument usually played by drunkards with little talent. Giano 22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Heathen?
How dare you besmirch my heathen brethren! No but seriously I very much appreciated your commentary in the "heathen" thread. Cheers. 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

William Dalrymple (historian)
Doc a pest called Lao Wai has been vandalising this entry again, adding disparaging comments as well as taking the opportuniuty to remove half the material even though it was fully sourced. Several attempts to replace it have been blocked by him. Is there anything you can do? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.12.22 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The article is hideously unsourced and reads like an advertising CV. If I had the time I'd crop it to half its length. Looks like your 'pest' may be on the right lines.--Docg 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, please read WP:VAND before accusing people of vandalism.--Docg 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your input sought
Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the article List of male performers in gay porn films and express a view on some of the WP:BLP-related discussion occuring on the article's talkpage. The article is maintained by a very defensive editor, User:Chidom who seems very resistent to proper sourcing. Specific issues include: My view is that each entry must be an porn actor that meets WP:PORN and have an individual inline citation to a reliable source confirming his status as a performer in gay pornography. User:Chidom seems to feel this will ruin 'his' article. As you have expertise in these areas I would greatly appreciate your finding a moment to take a look and comment. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Are the websites of pornography sellers reliable sources?
 * 2) Should each entry be individually sourced or is a general link to the directories of the sellers' websites acceptable?
 * 3) Are sources in editor comments acceptable or should they be easily accessible to the reader (i.e. inline cites)?
 * 4) Should the list continue to include pornstars that do not meet WP:PORN?


 * I'm not going to look at this. Porn, and especially gay porn, is not going to do it for me atm. However, being included on a list of porn-stars is not neutral (if you ain't a porn star you'll object) so BLP applies. Every citation on the list thus needs an independent citation. Any that don't have them must be removed - and can only be replaced once sourced. (Not everyone will like that, but that's what I did on the Internet penomenon article, and an RfC endorsed my view). Are website of pornography sellers reliable sources? Maybe - if they are established and reliable companies - but I'm sure as hell not going to research that. If I was to look at this article - which I'm not. I'd probably trim it......with a blowtorch!!!!! If you are bold in enforcing BLP, you will certainly get powerful support. Just make it clear what you are doing. BLP removal comes in handy.--Docg 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really do not understand your blocking of this content, what is it that drives you to do such things in this example? Do you dispute that fcats, the dates the people? And how is it exactly that you are the decider? I will be evry interested how you explain yopurself in laymans terms on not the unusual prose Ive read in your history of this behavior that has earned you crticism and scorn?


 * Well, for a start, I don't explain myself to cowardly single-purpose one-edit sock-puppets.--Docg 10:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Team effort
In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a sanity check
I am thoroughly perplexed by Earliest serving US governor, which I found because of the succession box at the bottom of Sid McMath. My initial reaction was to put it up for AfD, but it is at least theoretically sourceable, although I'm not sure how much original research is required to maintain it. Anyway, you are good at finding the worth in articles that I would let go, so I thought I would see what your reaction is to this. -- Donald Albury 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nota
That is an interesting statement. There has been a steady movement of rewording all notability guidelines to rely only on whether sources exist. It would be interesting to find out whether this actually matches what is happening at AFD, or whether it's an attempt at legislation.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:OTRS related assistance needed
Hello Doc :-) Thanks for your fine work on OTRS matters. Your ongoing dedication at removing harmful content is truly appreciated. Have a Great Day! FloNight 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Appreciate the support. Indeed that particular case was shocking, but easy in the sense it was clear-cut, and because no specific individuals were concerned I was able to 'go public' with the problem. I've had to deal with a few things today which have much finer judgement calls - and those are always the ones where I have to watch my back as far as the community is involved. --Docg 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Academy of Swift River
How was it biased? I was only refering to a newpaper articles and books written about the place.Covergaard 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Using disparaging terms, and weasel words - and given the other articles that you created it was pretty obvious that your intention was to criticism not neutral description. You can find the matter discussed by administrators here WP:ANI and the general agreement that your contributions have been highly improper. --Docg 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my intention was not an attack
The concept of a business which detainees children without court order just for torment can not be described in a positive manner. So I will deliver my information to others, so they can use it as they like. I am certainly out of here. I would have to be content with lightening a candle everytime a child dies in the future, not to mention all those who commits suicide because they can not handle the nightmares they will experience for the rest of their lives. Covergaard 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst I have great sympathy for your cause, and wish you well, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Good luck with this elsewhere.--Docg 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William Schnoebelen
Thanks. Pains me to admit it, but I probably should've done months ago what you've just done; I kept thinking "must fix verifiability some day" without actually getting around to it. --Calair 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes surgery is better than medication.--Docg 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New users
It may have been doomed to fail from the beginning. However, I am happy. It did get a discussion started about a growing problem (and one of the biggest threats to Wikipedia's credibility). Your proposal came up a few times though. I (and others) thought it was a good idea. Have you ever thought about submitting it as a proposal? Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this time, I doubt the developers would see it as a priority. But if someone else wants to run with it, I'm happy to let them.--Docg 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian responsibilities
Regarding Brian Peppers, and your argument regarding humanitarian responsibilities: We can't stop the Internet from documenting the meme. Should we prohibit ourselves from documenting it, and let curious searchers Google "brian peppers" and find Snopes, Wikitruth and ED? Or would it be better to try to write an article that does respect Peppers' humanity?  Λυδ α cιτγ  02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that argument can be made. But we are an encyclopedia - shall we write an article on every poor unfortunate who's happy slapping gets mentioned on some d-rate website? Anyway this debate is for elsewhere.--Docg 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Teen escort companies - why attack page
There were arguments both for and against the use of these companies.

Covergaard 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was POV in both directions but no attribution to reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a debating society - or a place for original research into the pros and cons. I I've said, please take you campaign elsewhere.--Docg 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal affairs is a reliable source. The article have even won a prize.

Covergaard 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Brandt
You have expressed concerns about whether there may be material needing to remain deleted in the archive of the talk page. I can understand the concern, but don't see any evidence in the talk page's deletion log of prior related deletions. I'm not about to wade through ~540 deleted edits by hand to check for versions that need to remain deleted. Now that the deletion review has been closed (by User:Thebainer) with the article undeleted, can you decide whether or not to undelete the talk page history. Normally it would just happen, but since you have expressed concern I want you to decide whether those concerns are still valid. GRBerry 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * if the deletion log doesn't show up any selective deletion, then there should be no problem. If it does, then there will be. All I was doing was flaggin up something that needed checking.--Docg 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (For a variety of reasons, I decline to use my admin tools on that article.)--Docg 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt source question
You RV'd out a source I had added... would you mind commenting here as to why? I can't see any reason that link fails WP:RS on any level. Thanks... - Denny 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)