Test test test Docg 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned a recent interaction between yourself and another user in this RFarb[ [1]]. I'm sorry I couldn't provide a better link. I'm terrible with links and can't figure out how to link to a section on a page. I also have a terrific headache that's impeding the progress of my learning.
However, given the nature of the thing, I thought it best to just go ahead and let you know - even if the link itself is unpretty. I'm conflicted about including these activities, since I wasn't directly involved (other than the fact that I witnessed it as it was happening).
I would rather not take it out because I do feel it's important, but I'm sorry in advance if it causes you any trouble or concern. On a side note thought your comments were spot-on and long overdue. NinaEliza 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What motivated you to change Jimmy Wales's birthday three days ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.193.201 ( talk • contribs).
I don't understand. Is the subject of the article disputing the date that he posted himself? Or is the subject of the article now regretting that he made his birthdate public? Birthdates are a common feature of biographical encyclopedias. I have signed my question as per your request. I posted the second comment, by the way, not the first and third. (You, I believe, can verify this.) I was looking at Wales's biography and thought it was strange that the birthdate was missing, considering Wikipedia has access to the subject of the biography. I thus began perusing the history, and thought it was even stranger that a possibly innacurate date had been posted for so long. If birthdates are not relevant to biographical articles, perhaps Wikipedia should exclude them from all biographies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylestevens ( talk • contribs).
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.
So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Please reply on this page.)
After doing some of my own research I have thrown my weight behind you for ArbCom. Good luck. -- Rtrev 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here [2]. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, ( Radiant) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer at a national public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a former candidate, if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org and will forward you my number. Neille i 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was so going to vote for you!-- Atlantima 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed the warning about vandalism which I didn't do -- I just wanted to say that this IP address doing the vandalism (192.203.136.246) is actually the wireless address for an entire community college (College of DuPage)... I hope you won't block it :-/
Sincerely, Victoria Wang | viv4ce(a)yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.203.136.246 ( talk) 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Doc, I should make myself clear to start that I don't think there was consensus to delete the Queen's University Chess Club article. However, I also do not feel that there was consensus to flat-out keep the article either, as only six people took part in the deletion discussion. I would be much more pleased if the article was relisted in order to obtain a clearer consensus, as I think that this article might set a precedent for the inclusion of other clubs at Queen's University in the project. Thanks for your time. Andy Saund e rs 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings -- My friend who is a Zuni anthropologist apparently wrote out an article on Uhepono, the head of the Zuni underworld, but when I went to look at it it had already been deleted. Just wondering what was so terrible about it that you wrote "FUCK THIS" in the comments when you deleted it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.28.209 ( talk • contribs) }
You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 ( talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
You have suppressed the page Globulation 2. You give two reasons: 1) alpha software and 2) no evidence of notability. I am one of the main developer of glob2, but not the creator of the page on Wikipedia. Yet I think that compared to other free software on WP and with respect to the criteria of listed in WP:SOFTWARE, glob2 has his place on Wikipedia:
1) It is true that we list glob2 as alpha software on our web site. I personally decided so some years ago with respect to classical software development cycle, where alpha version is a version with not all features, beta version is a full-featured version with some bugs, and final version is (theoretically) perfect software. This model apply less to free software, where they are released often and constantly improved. Glob2's actual state is much more mature than most free software games. In particular, it is fully playable, including on the Internet, and included in most major distributions. I thus think that the objection about alpha software does not hold.
2) There is several evidence of notability, mostly distribution inclusion but also web site reference. Distribution inclusions:
There is also several RPM packaged by individuals on the net for RPM-based distributions. Glob2 may be included in other distributions, but I think that this sample shows its inclusion is not isolated. Glob2 is also listed in several web sites. Some of them might have been edited by members of glob2 community, but the amount of comments and reaction shows that we are far from being the only one reading/maintaining those pages:
If you want to probe Glob2's notability, feel free to search the web using "glob2" or "globulation 2" keywords.
Thanks, have a nice day-- nct 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You posted the following on my talk page [19] but it doesn't make any sense. I have no idea of which archive you are talking about or why/what was done. Could you educate me? Balloonman 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to merge it into WP:LOCAL, and redirect it there. LOCAL is mostly stable and focuses on merging rather than deletion. I don't think it's all that helpful to have WP:SUPERMARKET, WP:RESTAURANT, WP:CHURCH and WP:GAS_STATION and other subsections. Obviously is a church is large enough to be known outside its own city, people can't say "delete per WP:LOCAL". HTH! >Radiant< 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite of your "IRC" opinion that I am "not worth it", It is only fair of me to give you notification of this edit of mine here [20], and chance to respond to it. I mention it only because the thread is now so long things are easily missed, and I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand. Giano 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm out of here, congratulations, you see Kelly's mates are just too powerful [21] who will be the next to stand up to her I wonder. Giano 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc, Sorry I didn't drop this in earlier. You have, in mine eyes, been an outstanding example of common sense and civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Doc,
Taking your recent words to heart, I made the Be Bold move and sub-divided the excessively long RfA for BostonMA, which was promptly reverted by user Heliogoland. Would you mind weighing in on whether using sub-headings actually "screws up WP:RFA" as the user has commented? Thanks, -- Leflyman Talk 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to point this out, but this and this don't work because of this and this. There is also this and this, but ultimately, given human nature, these sort of things will be recreated. My advice? Force substitution and/or kick it upstairs. Carcharoth 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This project also has a template. This could either be better (oversight) or worse (ends up like Esperanza). Carcharoth 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
NB, the following need depopulated. Any volunteers: [22] [23] [24] -- Docg 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if one person does all that in one go, their contributions list for that period becomes a list by default, even if they use misleading edit summaries. Isn't it amaxing how wiki tools can be misused? I suggest e-mailing someone to depopulate on the quiet, or even oversighting the depopulating edits. Tracking down the populating edits would take a long time and might be going a bit too far, particularly as lots of non-oversighted stuff already exists in page histories. When it is found and linked to, though, it should be oversighted. Carcharoth 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, because Google the verb is much, much more notable and widespread than the term "Wikipedian". I've seen Google used on many television programs, and frequently in real life. The only time I've ever heard Wikipedian was in the context of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. The two situations are not comparable. -- Cyde Weys 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at your comment in the deletion review, my comment in the deletion review, and the AFD and give me your thoughts. I opined Keep in the AFD and Endorse Deletion in the deletion review. Where was I wrong? GRBerry 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Awww... bugger.
I hope, really deeply hope, really truly madly deeply hope, I /* insert ever-increasing stream of modifiers */ hope that you don't think I'm arguing a position just to do so.
It's simply that there are lots of issues tangled up here and no one seems willing to even try to pull the threads apart. There's the short and the long, and I am under no obligation to agree with one simply becaue I agree with the other. It's not me being caught up on "process" it's about me having respect for other people's opinions.
The root of it is that some people thought this was toxic enough that it must be killed right bloody now. Others disagreed. Rather than using words to sort it out, deletion was used. More to the point, Cyde explicitly said he deleted it because debate hadn't.
We all three agree the category was useless. Almost all of them are. But if the case can't be made convincingly in a deletion debate, then we should not be hammering the button to make us right.
I'm very nearly done, but for this:
Another admin had closed a CfD and decided not to "kill on sight." Cyde was willing to over-ride that guy, but has said right out it would have been wrong for me to over-ride Cyde's deletion.
How does that not equate to "I'm right because it's me and I'm right?"
brenneman 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You closed the Afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wills and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Wilson (Countdown) as KEEP. Both debates featured three calls for deletion, including the nomination, and two keeps. That's not a conensus to delete, but it's hardly a consensus to keep. I think "no consensus" would be a more appropriate characterization of both debates, and I'm wondering why you labeled them as you did. — Swpb talk contribs 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed this debate stating that the result was to keep the article, however, I count 3 delete votes to 2 keep votes! Forbsey 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On Dec 20th you closed Deleted the AFD for List of dictators. It has since been recreated with a reference. I was not participating in the discussion and did not see the original so I don't know how the current relates to the deleted page, but your reason listed in the closure would apply to any such page. Not really interested one way or the other (Just thought it odd the Delete had a blue link.) but I thought you might want to look into it. Dimitrii 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey are these good to be deleted as well? Nlsanand 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How could you possibly close this as a "keep"? The article has since been redirected, but I can't believe that seven delete opinions (including the nominator), one person for a redirect, and three keep !votes equates to a "keep" closure, especially when you give no rationale as to why/how you made this closure. -- Kicking222 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for wanting to hit me with a stick that would provberbly finish me off for tonight after the other attacks I have recieved.-- Lucy-marie 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Doc, please don't add non-neutral, self-serving sources to articles as external links. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HughD (
talk •
contribs) 00:39, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to your rationale for closing this as "keep". I thought we had some fairly good arguments for deleting this... but then again, I'm biased, I was the nominator. Brianyoumans 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you should have given a bit more explanation of your "keep" decision at the top of the page. AfD is not a vote any more, so it would help if admins. give their reasons on closing in cases where there is no obvious consensus. There was actually a clear consensus that, at the very least, the list needed fixing. A comment like "Keep, but clean up" would have done the trick. I'm not trying to get on your case because I voted "delete". I'm just making the general point that a few words of explanation from an admin. can often avert a challenge to the closing decision and all the ensuing bother of re-nomination or DRV. Thanks. -- Folantin 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed a number of complaints about your decisions at afd closures. While I am not an admin and am speaking out of place, please consider that if there is no consensus to delete the article in question, generally the afd discussion is closed as no consensus as opposed to keep. While both statements are similar since no consensus defaults to keep, it is important if a user decides to nominate the article for deletion again. Then, if the previously discussed article was closed as keep, there is established precedent for it to be kept; but if it is closed as no consensus, then there is only established precedent of no consensus, which carries less weight — Iamunknown 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you undo the speedy delete and put this through TfD. Thanks, Addhoc 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you feel then there are about 50 pages you may want to put up for deletion. See all the articles under Category:Terrorism by country. There are also about 20 categories you may want to put up for CFD. KazakhPol 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The anon has just violated 3RR and shows no signs of stopping, despite my warning on Talk:Mike Mendoza. I've posted to WP:AN/3RR but if you're still currently online, could you take action? -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination), would you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy also. The nomination is incredibly vague, the nominator has never edited or commented on the talk page before. Please see my comments on the article.
I was really disappointed that User:Khodavand put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination) up for deletion, in probable violations of WP:POINT. I am one of the strongest supporters of the existance of this page, so I was pretty angry when he put the page up for deletion.
With User:Khodavand unfortunatly I have seen this behavior before though. A fairly new editor has his new article put up by deletion by editors who know wikipolicy like the back of there hand. He gets angry and violates WP:POINT. Granted, this doesnt excuse User:Khodavand behavior. Everyone should follow wikipolicy. I would like to humbly request your review of this situation. I will respect your decision, no matter what you decide.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally!! Somebody agree with me. I really think anything that is not confirm by Clarence House should put on Wikipedia. Wiki is not a tabloid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hau yee818 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
I see my vandal has returned to this page.
i would be really grateful if this vandal could be prohibited from attacking a living person's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yellowfrogs ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, -- BostonMA talk 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going back to check up on the Palm Bay Senior High School page, and was needless to say rather startled to find a huge chunk of my edit, regarding the 2005 graudation venue controversy, gone entirely. Checking the history, I see you were the user who removed it. Your edit comment, while... descriptive enough to at least give me a hint as to why, failed to really convey exactly the reasons for the removal of the entire section (as opposed to fact-tagging, which personally, I prefer, as it definitely still brings information to attention as unsourced,etc., while giving other users a chance to find sources if you yourself can't or don't have the time to). You wrote in your edit summary: "13:22, 17 September 2006 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) (→The 2005 graduation venue controversy - section removed per WP:LIVING - no references and several apparent errors)" I would like to ask what these "several apparent errors" were. If you could spot "several" specific "apparent errors", one would assume that some of it would be either simply unverified (e.g. merely need sourcing) or that you actually knew something about some of it and thought it to be incorrect. Either way, it doesn't seem called for to remove the entire section on a very notable incident in the school's history.
Now, poking through the post-my-edit history, that section underwent several changes, particularly explicit mentions of a writer named Narciso (or something like that), and a confusing reference to her being rumored to be Jennifer Musgrove's mother (either they're confused, or I was, because everyone I had talked to at the time - as well as, IIRC, one local newspaper - mentioned that "her mother's an atheist book author"). There's also other stuff in there about additional supposed reasons why Calvary Chapel was chosen as the venue for those graduation ceremonies that was put in there later.
Keep in mind, though - the event DID occur, there WAS a court case filed in suit, the ruling exists. It should NOT be ignored completely, is all I'm saying. Fast-checking was desperately needed, of course, but as I noted on the Talk page for the article:
This meant whole new restrictions (beyond physical safety, capacity, etc.) were likely placed on Brevard County's public schools regarding venues for events, certainly graduations but likely other events as well. The fact that this happened because a student at Palm Bay Senior High's family filed suit makes it a really notable fact that should very obviously be included in the article about the school. There are some other public schools whose articles one Wikipedia mention things as compartively small and common as hazing incidents that received publicity, so clearly, something like this needs a mention at least.
As of now, I'm planning only to edit the article to mention the following:
I won't name names yet - the only one I was ever sure of (and thus, why my initial edit mentioned only her) was Jennifer Musgrove, though I knew there were two students' families filing suit - and I won't name details until I've found a specific source for every single claim (though I'm still not sure how to add references, as opposed to links directly to a source, to articles on Wikipedia. Isn't there a tutorial for this kind of thing somewhere??). But, it does deserve at least a reference to the controversy. The big problem with this section isn't that it's completely untruthful (which it wasn't, for the most part at least, with the initial edit, save for the possiblity I acknowledge of having confused Musgrove's mother with another woman due to popular rumors); it's that so very many Florida papers that covered it do not have easily accessible back issues available online, not even from 2005. Same of course, with the local TV news stations - they don't exactly keep that stuff easily available online for long, from what I've found so far (the cheap bastards). So most of the sources have either vanished or are only available at the local libraries in hard copy or microfiche form. If you really want, I could look there, but it did happen. Though the beach may be messy, there's a few grains of truth there.
Once again - I really wish you would tell us WHICH "apparent errors" you spotted. It would help a lot in regards to what needs sources and what should or shouldn't go back in. :) OK? Runa27 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Noticed you closed this as Keep, without comment. Do you mind if I ask why? I may be biased, but consensus seems to be in favor of deletion, and the keep !voters didn't address the sources or notability concerns as far as I can see. Shimeru 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the review, but I wanted to thank you again here for finding sources. It's heartening, and unfortunately somewhat rare, to see someone improve the article rather than simply assert notability. For taking the extra step, I award you:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For stepping up to {{ sofixit}} by tracking down sources. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
Times like these, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am Doc_glasgow on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Doc-glasgow. Thanks. -- Docg 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the very long and very abusive post by Ace Class Shadow on the Spider-man 3 talk page. He uses many expletives, and is overall very rude in his comments. He's done this frequently before. Thanks. I've noticed you have had to warn him before. He frequently chews people out on Wikipedia. This needs to be addressed. Schnicker 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A special thanks for liking me so much that you voiced your support for me twice on my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
I posted a message at Talk:Defenders of the Christian Faith as a reply to yours. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kill_phil. It seems that you forgot to delete also the sequel Kill Phil 2 also listed in the same AfD. Cate | Talk 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not seeing it. My mistake. Happy holidays!!! -- PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
When? WookMuff 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
please see latest entry by 81.77.216.206. this page was blocked by you a couple of months ago. needs blocking again?
living person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 ( talk) 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
living person sean parker-perry and topic: longdendale bypass you previously blocked malicious user 'jonnyreynolds' under IP: 81.77.216.206 it seems this 'block' has expired and this person has reverted back to hacking these pages!!! pemanent block required please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 ( talk) 12:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Test test test Docg 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned a recent interaction between yourself and another user in this RFarb[ [1]]. I'm sorry I couldn't provide a better link. I'm terrible with links and can't figure out how to link to a section on a page. I also have a terrific headache that's impeding the progress of my learning.
However, given the nature of the thing, I thought it best to just go ahead and let you know - even if the link itself is unpretty. I'm conflicted about including these activities, since I wasn't directly involved (other than the fact that I witnessed it as it was happening).
I would rather not take it out because I do feel it's important, but I'm sorry in advance if it causes you any trouble or concern. On a side note thought your comments were spot-on and long overdue. NinaEliza 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What motivated you to change Jimmy Wales's birthday three days ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.193.201 ( talk • contribs).
I don't understand. Is the subject of the article disputing the date that he posted himself? Or is the subject of the article now regretting that he made his birthdate public? Birthdates are a common feature of biographical encyclopedias. I have signed my question as per your request. I posted the second comment, by the way, not the first and third. (You, I believe, can verify this.) I was looking at Wales's biography and thought it was strange that the birthdate was missing, considering Wikipedia has access to the subject of the biography. I thus began perusing the history, and thought it was even stranger that a possibly innacurate date had been posted for so long. If birthdates are not relevant to biographical articles, perhaps Wikipedia should exclude them from all biographies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylestevens ( talk • contribs).
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.
So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Please reply on this page.)
After doing some of my own research I have thrown my weight behind you for ArbCom. Good luck. -- Rtrev 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here [2]. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, ( Radiant) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer at a national public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a former candidate, if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org and will forward you my number. Neille i 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was so going to vote for you!-- Atlantima 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed the warning about vandalism which I didn't do -- I just wanted to say that this IP address doing the vandalism (192.203.136.246) is actually the wireless address for an entire community college (College of DuPage)... I hope you won't block it :-/
Sincerely, Victoria Wang | viv4ce(a)yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.203.136.246 ( talk) 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Doc, I should make myself clear to start that I don't think there was consensus to delete the Queen's University Chess Club article. However, I also do not feel that there was consensus to flat-out keep the article either, as only six people took part in the deletion discussion. I would be much more pleased if the article was relisted in order to obtain a clearer consensus, as I think that this article might set a precedent for the inclusion of other clubs at Queen's University in the project. Thanks for your time. Andy Saund e rs 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings -- My friend who is a Zuni anthropologist apparently wrote out an article on Uhepono, the head of the Zuni underworld, but when I went to look at it it had already been deleted. Just wondering what was so terrible about it that you wrote "FUCK THIS" in the comments when you deleted it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.28.209 ( talk • contribs) }
You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 ( talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
You have suppressed the page Globulation 2. You give two reasons: 1) alpha software and 2) no evidence of notability. I am one of the main developer of glob2, but not the creator of the page on Wikipedia. Yet I think that compared to other free software on WP and with respect to the criteria of listed in WP:SOFTWARE, glob2 has his place on Wikipedia:
1) It is true that we list glob2 as alpha software on our web site. I personally decided so some years ago with respect to classical software development cycle, where alpha version is a version with not all features, beta version is a full-featured version with some bugs, and final version is (theoretically) perfect software. This model apply less to free software, where they are released often and constantly improved. Glob2's actual state is much more mature than most free software games. In particular, it is fully playable, including on the Internet, and included in most major distributions. I thus think that the objection about alpha software does not hold.
2) There is several evidence of notability, mostly distribution inclusion but also web site reference. Distribution inclusions:
There is also several RPM packaged by individuals on the net for RPM-based distributions. Glob2 may be included in other distributions, but I think that this sample shows its inclusion is not isolated. Glob2 is also listed in several web sites. Some of them might have been edited by members of glob2 community, but the amount of comments and reaction shows that we are far from being the only one reading/maintaining those pages:
If you want to probe Glob2's notability, feel free to search the web using "glob2" or "globulation 2" keywords.
Thanks, have a nice day-- nct 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You posted the following on my talk page [19] but it doesn't make any sense. I have no idea of which archive you are talking about or why/what was done. Could you educate me? Balloonman 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to merge it into WP:LOCAL, and redirect it there. LOCAL is mostly stable and focuses on merging rather than deletion. I don't think it's all that helpful to have WP:SUPERMARKET, WP:RESTAURANT, WP:CHURCH and WP:GAS_STATION and other subsections. Obviously is a church is large enough to be known outside its own city, people can't say "delete per WP:LOCAL". HTH! >Radiant< 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite of your "IRC" opinion that I am "not worth it", It is only fair of me to give you notification of this edit of mine here [20], and chance to respond to it. I mention it only because the thread is now so long things are easily missed, and I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand. Giano 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm out of here, congratulations, you see Kelly's mates are just too powerful [21] who will be the next to stand up to her I wonder. Giano 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc, Sorry I didn't drop this in earlier. You have, in mine eyes, been an outstanding example of common sense and civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Doc,
Taking your recent words to heart, I made the Be Bold move and sub-divided the excessively long RfA for BostonMA, which was promptly reverted by user Heliogoland. Would you mind weighing in on whether using sub-headings actually "screws up WP:RFA" as the user has commented? Thanks, -- Leflyman Talk 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to point this out, but this and this don't work because of this and this. There is also this and this, but ultimately, given human nature, these sort of things will be recreated. My advice? Force substitution and/or kick it upstairs. Carcharoth 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This project also has a template. This could either be better (oversight) or worse (ends up like Esperanza). Carcharoth 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
NB, the following need depopulated. Any volunteers: [22] [23] [24] -- Docg 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if one person does all that in one go, their contributions list for that period becomes a list by default, even if they use misleading edit summaries. Isn't it amaxing how wiki tools can be misused? I suggest e-mailing someone to depopulate on the quiet, or even oversighting the depopulating edits. Tracking down the populating edits would take a long time and might be going a bit too far, particularly as lots of non-oversighted stuff already exists in page histories. When it is found and linked to, though, it should be oversighted. Carcharoth 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, because Google the verb is much, much more notable and widespread than the term "Wikipedian". I've seen Google used on many television programs, and frequently in real life. The only time I've ever heard Wikipedian was in the context of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. The two situations are not comparable. -- Cyde Weys 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at your comment in the deletion review, my comment in the deletion review, and the AFD and give me your thoughts. I opined Keep in the AFD and Endorse Deletion in the deletion review. Where was I wrong? GRBerry 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Awww... bugger.
I hope, really deeply hope, really truly madly deeply hope, I /* insert ever-increasing stream of modifiers */ hope that you don't think I'm arguing a position just to do so.
It's simply that there are lots of issues tangled up here and no one seems willing to even try to pull the threads apart. There's the short and the long, and I am under no obligation to agree with one simply becaue I agree with the other. It's not me being caught up on "process" it's about me having respect for other people's opinions.
The root of it is that some people thought this was toxic enough that it must be killed right bloody now. Others disagreed. Rather than using words to sort it out, deletion was used. More to the point, Cyde explicitly said he deleted it because debate hadn't.
We all three agree the category was useless. Almost all of them are. But if the case can't be made convincingly in a deletion debate, then we should not be hammering the button to make us right.
I'm very nearly done, but for this:
Another admin had closed a CfD and decided not to "kill on sight." Cyde was willing to over-ride that guy, but has said right out it would have been wrong for me to over-ride Cyde's deletion.
How does that not equate to "I'm right because it's me and I'm right?"
brenneman 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You closed the Afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wills and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Wilson (Countdown) as KEEP. Both debates featured three calls for deletion, including the nomination, and two keeps. That's not a conensus to delete, but it's hardly a consensus to keep. I think "no consensus" would be a more appropriate characterization of both debates, and I'm wondering why you labeled them as you did. — Swpb talk contribs 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed this debate stating that the result was to keep the article, however, I count 3 delete votes to 2 keep votes! Forbsey 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On Dec 20th you closed Deleted the AFD for List of dictators. It has since been recreated with a reference. I was not participating in the discussion and did not see the original so I don't know how the current relates to the deleted page, but your reason listed in the closure would apply to any such page. Not really interested one way or the other (Just thought it odd the Delete had a blue link.) but I thought you might want to look into it. Dimitrii 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey are these good to be deleted as well? Nlsanand 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How could you possibly close this as a "keep"? The article has since been redirected, but I can't believe that seven delete opinions (including the nominator), one person for a redirect, and three keep !votes equates to a "keep" closure, especially when you give no rationale as to why/how you made this closure. -- Kicking222 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for wanting to hit me with a stick that would provberbly finish me off for tonight after the other attacks I have recieved.-- Lucy-marie 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Doc, please don't add non-neutral, self-serving sources to articles as external links. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HughD (
talk •
contribs) 00:39, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to your rationale for closing this as "keep". I thought we had some fairly good arguments for deleting this... but then again, I'm biased, I was the nominator. Brianyoumans 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you should have given a bit more explanation of your "keep" decision at the top of the page. AfD is not a vote any more, so it would help if admins. give their reasons on closing in cases where there is no obvious consensus. There was actually a clear consensus that, at the very least, the list needed fixing. A comment like "Keep, but clean up" would have done the trick. I'm not trying to get on your case because I voted "delete". I'm just making the general point that a few words of explanation from an admin. can often avert a challenge to the closing decision and all the ensuing bother of re-nomination or DRV. Thanks. -- Folantin 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed a number of complaints about your decisions at afd closures. While I am not an admin and am speaking out of place, please consider that if there is no consensus to delete the article in question, generally the afd discussion is closed as no consensus as opposed to keep. While both statements are similar since no consensus defaults to keep, it is important if a user decides to nominate the article for deletion again. Then, if the previously discussed article was closed as keep, there is established precedent for it to be kept; but if it is closed as no consensus, then there is only established precedent of no consensus, which carries less weight — Iamunknown 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you undo the speedy delete and put this through TfD. Thanks, Addhoc 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you feel then there are about 50 pages you may want to put up for deletion. See all the articles under Category:Terrorism by country. There are also about 20 categories you may want to put up for CFD. KazakhPol 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The anon has just violated 3RR and shows no signs of stopping, despite my warning on Talk:Mike Mendoza. I've posted to WP:AN/3RR but if you're still currently online, could you take action? -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination), would you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy also. The nomination is incredibly vague, the nominator has never edited or commented on the talk page before. Please see my comments on the article.
I was really disappointed that User:Khodavand put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination) up for deletion, in probable violations of WP:POINT. I am one of the strongest supporters of the existance of this page, so I was pretty angry when he put the page up for deletion.
With User:Khodavand unfortunatly I have seen this behavior before though. A fairly new editor has his new article put up by deletion by editors who know wikipolicy like the back of there hand. He gets angry and violates WP:POINT. Granted, this doesnt excuse User:Khodavand behavior. Everyone should follow wikipolicy. I would like to humbly request your review of this situation. I will respect your decision, no matter what you decide.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally!! Somebody agree with me. I really think anything that is not confirm by Clarence House should put on Wikipedia. Wiki is not a tabloid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hau yee818 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
I see my vandal has returned to this page.
i would be really grateful if this vandal could be prohibited from attacking a living person's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yellowfrogs ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, -- BostonMA talk 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going back to check up on the Palm Bay Senior High School page, and was needless to say rather startled to find a huge chunk of my edit, regarding the 2005 graudation venue controversy, gone entirely. Checking the history, I see you were the user who removed it. Your edit comment, while... descriptive enough to at least give me a hint as to why, failed to really convey exactly the reasons for the removal of the entire section (as opposed to fact-tagging, which personally, I prefer, as it definitely still brings information to attention as unsourced,etc., while giving other users a chance to find sources if you yourself can't or don't have the time to). You wrote in your edit summary: "13:22, 17 September 2006 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) (→The 2005 graduation venue controversy - section removed per WP:LIVING - no references and several apparent errors)" I would like to ask what these "several apparent errors" were. If you could spot "several" specific "apparent errors", one would assume that some of it would be either simply unverified (e.g. merely need sourcing) or that you actually knew something about some of it and thought it to be incorrect. Either way, it doesn't seem called for to remove the entire section on a very notable incident in the school's history.
Now, poking through the post-my-edit history, that section underwent several changes, particularly explicit mentions of a writer named Narciso (or something like that), and a confusing reference to her being rumored to be Jennifer Musgrove's mother (either they're confused, or I was, because everyone I had talked to at the time - as well as, IIRC, one local newspaper - mentioned that "her mother's an atheist book author"). There's also other stuff in there about additional supposed reasons why Calvary Chapel was chosen as the venue for those graduation ceremonies that was put in there later.
Keep in mind, though - the event DID occur, there WAS a court case filed in suit, the ruling exists. It should NOT be ignored completely, is all I'm saying. Fast-checking was desperately needed, of course, but as I noted on the Talk page for the article:
This meant whole new restrictions (beyond physical safety, capacity, etc.) were likely placed on Brevard County's public schools regarding venues for events, certainly graduations but likely other events as well. The fact that this happened because a student at Palm Bay Senior High's family filed suit makes it a really notable fact that should very obviously be included in the article about the school. There are some other public schools whose articles one Wikipedia mention things as compartively small and common as hazing incidents that received publicity, so clearly, something like this needs a mention at least.
As of now, I'm planning only to edit the article to mention the following:
I won't name names yet - the only one I was ever sure of (and thus, why my initial edit mentioned only her) was Jennifer Musgrove, though I knew there were two students' families filing suit - and I won't name details until I've found a specific source for every single claim (though I'm still not sure how to add references, as opposed to links directly to a source, to articles on Wikipedia. Isn't there a tutorial for this kind of thing somewhere??). But, it does deserve at least a reference to the controversy. The big problem with this section isn't that it's completely untruthful (which it wasn't, for the most part at least, with the initial edit, save for the possiblity I acknowledge of having confused Musgrove's mother with another woman due to popular rumors); it's that so very many Florida papers that covered it do not have easily accessible back issues available online, not even from 2005. Same of course, with the local TV news stations - they don't exactly keep that stuff easily available online for long, from what I've found so far (the cheap bastards). So most of the sources have either vanished or are only available at the local libraries in hard copy or microfiche form. If you really want, I could look there, but it did happen. Though the beach may be messy, there's a few grains of truth there.
Once again - I really wish you would tell us WHICH "apparent errors" you spotted. It would help a lot in regards to what needs sources and what should or shouldn't go back in. :) OK? Runa27 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Noticed you closed this as Keep, without comment. Do you mind if I ask why? I may be biased, but consensus seems to be in favor of deletion, and the keep !voters didn't address the sources or notability concerns as far as I can see. Shimeru 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the review, but I wanted to thank you again here for finding sources. It's heartening, and unfortunately somewhat rare, to see someone improve the article rather than simply assert notability. For taking the extra step, I award you:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For stepping up to {{ sofixit}} by tracking down sources. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
Times like these, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Shimeru 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am Doc_glasgow on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Doc-glasgow. Thanks. -- Docg 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the very long and very abusive post by Ace Class Shadow on the Spider-man 3 talk page. He uses many expletives, and is overall very rude in his comments. He's done this frequently before. Thanks. I've noticed you have had to warn him before. He frequently chews people out on Wikipedia. This needs to be addressed. Schnicker 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A special thanks for liking me so much that you voiced your support for me twice on my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
I posted a message at Talk:Defenders of the Christian Faith as a reply to yours. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kill_phil. It seems that you forgot to delete also the sequel Kill Phil 2 also listed in the same AfD. Cate | Talk 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not seeing it. My mistake. Happy holidays!!! -- PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
When? WookMuff 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
please see latest entry by 81.77.216.206. this page was blocked by you a couple of months ago. needs blocking again?
living person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 ( talk) 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
living person sean parker-perry and topic: longdendale bypass you previously blocked malicious user 'jonnyreynolds' under IP: 81.77.216.206 it seems this 'block' has expired and this person has reverted back to hacking these pages!!! pemanent block required please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 ( talk) 12:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).