User talk:Doc glasgow/Feb/2008

OTRSBot?

I've noticed the User:Doc glasgow/OTRS watch page, and while in-channel notice a distinct lack of the bot. Have you heard if the idea was feasible or not, or possibly just disliked by the idlers in the channel?

If it's acceptable to the other agents, I'm tempted to just write the thing myself and host it on my ts account.

BTW, info-en and permissions queues both have backlogs, if you've got access and are bored. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been operating for some months at #wikimedia-otrs-watch ,although I've not had much to do with it lately. See [1] --Doc^g 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

Could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Jay Brannan? I'd appreciate it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered.--Doc^g 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense interaction

You already won; there is dignity in taking a break from the endless arguments on that page. Especially, since you seem overexcited, with the haphazard, fragmented copying of comments into edit summaries, and so on. That tone, that form, it just adds further tension. We need less. El_C 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Won what? I do not consider I won anything. Nor am I over-excited. Actually, I am very calm. I often cut and paste my comments into edit summaries (as do many), I consider it useful for anyone searching the history for a particular comment. However, I'm happy to re-think it, if there's a consensus that it isn't helpful. I'm not sure what the tension is that you feel. Maybe you need to unwatch for a bit? SlimVirgin made some allegations, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Maybe she should have taken the discussion elsewhere??? I'm happy to see it dropped or re-commenced elsewhere.--Doc^g 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why haven't you asked Slim to drop it too? I feel picked on :( --Doc^g 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

I am awarding you a Special barnstar for this message which summarizes perfectly the intractable situation with which ArbCom was stuck. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks. That certainly a colourful one.--Doc^g 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen bee (subculture)

Hello there. I de-prodded this article on the basis that I felt it maybe should be kept in its original form (although probably with some changes over the course of the AFD). I see that you AFDed it but then closed the AFD and changed it back to a redirect. Would you be amenable to the idea of me reverting it back and re-opening the AFD, to see if people still feel the same. Having looked at the original AFD, the redirect decision does seem slightly questionable as there were three outright keep !votes. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you open a deletion discussion to settle the question of a redirect, people may shout at you.--Doc^g 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So what should I do if I believe that the article should not be a redirect? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea, since I can't see how an article could possibly be justified. The current one is certainly trash. You could try to write something on the talk page and try to get a consensus.--Doc^g 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted it back to the article and will start working on it and trying to discuss on the talk page as you suggest. To be honest the current version seems OK to me but does need more work and sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest you reverted it back, there is currently consensus for a redirect NOT an article. I suggested you made your case for changing the consensus on the talk page.--Doc^g 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Princess Louise FAC

Just a quick note to say thanks very much for copyediting Princess Louise, It's much appreciated. It was a good idea to remove the British princesses template, and un-collapse the Ancestry template, but they were put in as standard by the WP:BROY directors (DBD and Morhange). I'll leave a note on the project talk page about it, and raise concerns about some browsers coping with the "hide" templates and so on. Anyway, I've left a barnstar in your awards section, but the signature isn't appearing. Best wishes and thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing of Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses. You may wish to read it to check if I've raised your concerns correctly, and/or give your own views. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured those changes might get reverted, but anyway I thought it was worth a try. The princesses' box thingy was strange, why the unexplained generations. Nice article :) --Doc^g 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, unfortunately. I've asked for the template to be edited so it makes it absolutely clear the generations are from George I. It's currently at the bottom (I missed it, though) so I've asked it to be put at the top instead. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm prejudiced here. I hate these bloody things, per my WP:UNBOX.--Doc^g 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you! The British princesses template is now a little clearer, so the generations descent is made clear at the top instead of the bottom. However I don't believe it adds anything to the article, since there's a category for princesses. PeterSymonds | talk 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a discussion here about the template, as my last act before I sleep :). I wouldn't copy your comments at WP:FAC over without your permission, so if you wish to comment there you're most welcome. It may help because the primary contributors to the BRoy talk page are the users that created the template. Anyway, I've added two alternative suggestions for users to consider, hoping that our view may be shared. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bish's page

Check the history (or checkuser). Yomangani^talk 10:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser, do you? I did check the history, all I see is a single purpose sock, but I see no evidence that it is bishonen. Could be, but I doubt it, not her style. What's your reason for certainty?--Doc^g 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the name is a reference to her opus S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. It's either her or someone pretending to be her.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is her. I have secret sleuthing powers, which allows me to know that for certain that she wants her sentimental crap saved. Yomangani^talk 11:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, not worth arguing over. Had you just said, "bishonen told me", I'd have dropped it. I lack ESP.--Doc^g 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Electronic skid protection? Me too. I keep falling over when I'm ice-skating. Yomangani^talk 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with regulating my polynomials--Doc^g 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley

Can you let me know if I have addressed your concerns well enough that you can now support the Tyrone Wheatley FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it seems you have discounted rather than address my concerns, which is naturally your right.--Doc^g 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I considered your suggestions and was against most of them. I did not ignore them. I guess I was looking for your opinion of my responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how I have done with your comments. Could you please strike through resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

who needs a "kick me sign"

Indeed.  :) Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation

Fixed. Sorry about that. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and notability added

Hi Doc: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the stubs. But, your attitude here is really out of line. We discuss these things and reach consensus, we don't make threats, we don't insist that some wikiproject gets to decide, we don't do special pleading. Stubs can develop, you are correct, and I totally agree. But something in a stub needs to show that the thing has some significance to allow us to believe it is worth keeping about to let it grow. If these articles have that then fine, but frankly they utterly lacked that, and we normally speedy delete articles with no assertion of notability. That does not prevent them being created again later with an assertion of notability if one exists. There is no reason to "withdraw" the nomination - we simply debate until consensus is reached.--Doc^g 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But Doc, you are hearing from multiple editors associated with WP:JUDAISM, who have a far better insight into and expertise about these topics, who are essentially all stating that the stubs in qustion can all be fleshed out and that reliable sources exist. The root of the problem though here is that someone decided to go on a spree of creating stubs about synagogues in Minnesota, not adding more to them when requested, and leaving others to face the music and defend his unfinished work. See below... Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

Hi Doc: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hong Kong Market Crash.jpg

Hi Doc - I see you added a new tag to this one, after I had put up the standardized NFUr template. This photo was initially uploaded by Bishonen, who of course is now gone (I caught the notice from her userpage, which is on my watchlist), and I am just doing damage limitation by adding the tag. Would you have any suggestions as to how this image can be "saved"? Uploaded materials are an area where I have extremely limited experience, so I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Risker (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a copyrighted image that falls outside our non-free use policy. At the time it was uploaded by bishonen, we were a lot more liberal about this. But under the current rules, I'm afraid it ought to be deleted. It is pretty clear cut.--Doc^g 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think our young revolutionary is being deliberately obstreperous, Doc. Between El C, Nandesuka, and myself, this is the third or fourth time we have tried to resolve the issues with this same image. The rationale for deletion that you have given here in this section is the first one that has concretely explained why the image should be deleted; up until now, we've been stumbling around in the dark trying to solve a problem that wasn't actually identified. Now that I see the reasoning, I don't intend to pursue the matter further. Risker (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, glad its sorted. No hard feelings, bad communication all round.--Doc^g 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

moot

What does moot mean? --123Pie (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Moot means the discussion is now pointless. Nominating your page for deletion for having too many userboxes was ridiculous. However, deleting the page because of an inappropriate username would not have been, but since the username issues was being addressed, there was no longer any point in deletion the page, hence moot. I hope that helps.--Doc^g 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --123Pie (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Defining NPOV

Hi Doc: Regarding your outburst here: [2] I want to just focus on one important point that I see that you, like many others, do not grasp. You state: "This is a neutral encyclopedia and we operate as a community regardless of ideology. I hope all voters leave their POV at the door when they engage here (although obviously you are unable to do that)" and I am truly astounded at your conclusion. Let me explain something to you. The abbreviation WP:NPOV means that when editors write or edit articles they must adhere to a "Neutral Point Of View" it does NOT mean that editors must have "NO Point Of View" at all because everyone is entitled to have their own point of view at all times and in fact keep it. That personal point of view may even be a source for the material in many good articles, provided that all is written in a "NEUTRAL Point Of View"! Thus the "N" in NPOV stands for "NEUTRAL" and not for "NO" and no-one is requested or required to give up anything they believe in or think. Now, you should know by now, that what is written on article pages is not the same as what is often allowed and expressed on article talk pages or at AFDs where there is more leeway to express a variety of different views and in ways different to how it's done in articles. In those places there is more openess to express oneself more fully and freely, and just as I tolerate you letting off steam at me and I don't get angry at you (why should I, I believe in the merit of turning the other cheek and that two wrongs do not make a right) and you are free to make the wildest accusations against me on talk pages and AFD pages as that is your right to have a POV there, but that could bever be written into an actual article because in articles everything must be written in as Neutral Point Of View way as is humanly possible. So again, NPOV does not mean "NO" Point Of View, and we are allowed to privately and even on talk pages and AFDs retain and have our Personal Point Of View and even share it openly (sharing nothing about our thoughts is bad and it's better if we understand where we each of us is coming from) as long as it is within the basic bounds of what is after-all a strong debate at an AFD where important issues are being discussed and not about some meaningless niceties of no real concern to an intelligent person. Thank you. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of what NPOV stands for. But it is not neutral to suggest that editors who don't share your religious presuppositions should be disqualified from participating in deletion debates. Whether I Jew, a Christian or an atheist is not your concern, we deal with the content and the content decisions we don't do ad hominem: your remark that "editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" is contrary both to NPOV and assuming good faith. And frankly, since you are here to lecture me, I find your exploitation of the history of Jewish persecution, and the holocaust, as an argument in a deletion debate to be offensive in the extreme [3]. --Doc^g 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I like your style and I am not offended by anything you say to or about me. I am very careful about my choice of words and you on the other hand have a tendency to put words into other people's mouths, and here we have a good example when you falsely accuse me of saying "editors who don't share your [my] religious presuppositions should be disqualified from participating in deletion debates" when I never said anything like that! Do you think I am that dumb? And I have almost never called anyone to be "disqualified" for or from anything even when I know that they do not mean me well and wish to destroy what I hold precious, (one exception was when a notorious banned and blocked sockpuppeteer hurled the most abusive and violent curses at me). I can live with enemies. But it seems that the notion of "disqualification" is an obsession and even sometimes a bad habit some admins pick up since it is they who run around "disquailfying" this or that editor for this or that infringement, a job I have never aspired to and never liked. You are thinking too much like an admin and not acting with WP:AGF that I am NOT saying what YOU THINK or IMAGINE I am saying! Take a very careful look again at my words that you don't like, and you will see that I am not "disqualifying" anyone from voting or saying or doing anything (how could I, am I Jimbo Wales?) but what I am saying is the obvious, that we should watch out for the dangers of the influences of ignorance or prejudice in shaping outcomes and in this case it's "editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" -- and note I state "should" and NOT "disqualified" -- just as everyone needs to be on guard against any group of editors who have been been known for pro- or anti-something writing and editing then suddenly descending upon the subjects they oppose and despise to pick them apart to look via tendentious reasons and hiding behind technicalities to get them removed, and delete some of them. Or for pro-something editors to get involved with AFDs on issues they oppose and start pontificating against it. I know it's a little bit more of higher-order thinking than some people are accustomed to, but it is nevertheless kosher and within bounds. Therefore, if you would allow me to explain myself instead of screaming yourt head off at me each time I write something, you will see that I am saying something that is reasonable and logical and that can righfully be expressed as a concern or request that editors be more senstive and conscious to lurking bias or dangers that should not be influencing the matter under discussions (and when you enter discussions, check that word "disqualifying" at the door). Editors don't enter AFDs like robotic unsmiling automatons to say just yea or nay and then walk away like the zombie brain dead. All editors always have underlying serious concerns about the ongoing viability and survival of topics that are closest to their hearts and expertise and they express, sometimes not the way you would like to hear it, so ask for better clarification rather than getting your back up. I am talking logic, reason, morality and justice and I am not losing myself nor hiding behind all sorts of disctracting and distractable minutia. About my other comments you pass judgment without asking me to explain. You are sitting in judgment of me while I am trying to engage you in a discussion, so that it makes it difficult to communicate. Emergency situations require emergency responses but my discussions are a part of the other isssue you raise, but you have nothing to do with that. You fail to take note of the other editor's provocative and unilateral moves that evoked my sharp response at that time. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You say: ""editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" -- and note I state "should" and NOT "disqualified"". But here's the thing, they certainly SHOULD be involved in judgement - indeed they, like all users, should be encouraged to be so involved. If they are are to be discouraged because they might have biases, then equally pro-Jewish editors SHOULD NOT participate in judgements, since they might also have biases. You would be better to have retracted that remark rather than accuse me of of misrepresenting you and then wikilawyer the definition. Of course you can't disqualify people, but neither should you attempt to discourage them. Perhaps people who don't know much about a subject should be willing to listen to those who do, but people's ideological commitments, whether Jewish, atheist or Christian should not enter into it.--Doc^g 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Doc, while I agree with you in principle, that is not the rock-bottom reality of how things ultimately work in the long-run because editors who tend to write and contribute to the field/s they are educated and interested in will pretty quickly get to know and meet those editors who share their interests and will be able to assess and evaluate their level of expertise in that given common subject. As editors gather around topics to build up articles they get to know each other so that when they subsequently participate in AFDs or similar dialogues they are very clear about who is or is not competent in that subject and they will quickly latch on and kick up a storm if they see if non-competent editors suddenly appear to cause trouble. Indeed that is why there is the policy of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY as well as WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY so that, for example, if mischief makers and malcontents wish to flex their muscles in AFDs for example, those editors who are more familiar and are known to be reliable with that subject can appeal to other admins or and are believed and the ones who are out to cause trouble by bad-faith editorial activity can be stopped. This is so simple and basic to everyday life on Wikipedia on a global and practical level that I am surprised that someone as sophisticated as you can say things like "... all users, should be encouraged to be so involved." Sure any editor is free to roam and enter into any far off vote, but how smart would it be for "all users" to do so with subjects they know nothing about causing absolute havoc as the blind try to lead the blind. From a user's page and edits it may be openly known and clear what he opposes and has no respect for the very subject he is involving himself in. For example, I am not a mathematician nor a medical doctor (but I love the subjects out of curiosity without ever having studied them formally) so that I would never in a thousand years dream of entering into serious discussions or AFDs about mathematics of medicine when I know that there are expert mathematicians who may even be university professors or medical experts who write text books involved in these discussions and if I were to suddenly pop in and give my penny's worth in an AFD or decide to nominate mathematics or medicine stubs for the most pious of policy reasons for deletion, I would be figuratively shoved out the door and probably humilaited by default for my ignorance and temerity at getting involved over my head with stuff I had no busines of going into in the first place. Now is there a Wikipedia policy that forbids my involvement? No. Because as you say we are a "community etc" but we are not a communist commune either and we are all expected to keep perspective and know who we are and know what we know and don't know and essentially know are place, just as when passngers get on a plane, they don't all jump to be the pilots. I think I am making my point and I am not Wikilawyering either. I am having a discussion with you without you throwing this or that policy guideline at me as some sort of barrier to normal human communucation. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just stop it. Atheists can be perfectly knowledgeable about religion, and believers can be perfectly ignorant. Atheists can grasp NPOV, when established members of certain wikiprojects can be quite dreadful pov-pushers. Now, I think I've had enough of this conversation.--Doc^g 07:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: ^demon

Hi Doc, I'll leave a short note at the RFA, but wanted to respond here in some detail. First, I don't really think that a non-admin could close an XFD of 700 categories, against overwhelming consensus, as delete. Theoretically it's true that non-admins can close XFD discussions, but in practice, they cannot close against consensus and are speedily reopened (and often warned) when they do.

There's other points, such as Walton's, that I also find compelling. But the issue for me is that I think we as a community underestimate the damage that low-civility admins inflict, even when they use their tools more or less inline with our standards. The same valid deletion does less damage kindly explained than rudely. Caprice has a lot more sting when it comes from someone who once earned a broad endorsement from the community i.e. passed an RFA.

I don't think this is trivial. I think it's perhaps the most broken part of our entire adminship culture. (In fact, I think such admins, more than the RFA crowd, is responsible for the culture of RFA. Call opposition petty, but it's always looked more like an immune system response to me.) Serious people -- and we need more serious people at Wikipedia -- don't like to be roughed up, pointlessly, by churlish technocrats, especially those who don't even know how to look up a reference or write a paragraph. I can't quantify the number of professors, grad students, doctors, enthusiasts, bibliophiles who came here intrigued -- excited even! -- encountered the rudeness behind the scenes; who decided, quietly, that it wasn't worth it. No retired banner, no parting speech, no good-bye notes on talk. Just one day their contributions stopped coming and nobody notices the Featured Articles that they never wrote.

I know because it was almost me, I just couldn't take the arrogance of some of the powerful here and their realpolitik games. And I think there's a lot of people like me in this world. I'm sorry this has gotten long, but my point is this: "net negative" doesn't just come from hitting Delete, Block, or Protect. It also comes from hitting Save Page. --JayHenry (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've seen more incivility caused at Rfa than prevented by it. In any case, I think the specific points made at RfA are wrong. Sure deleting an article Jimbo created isn't dreadfully clever, on the other hand, if one regularly deletes a lot of stuff, one will get some things spectacularly wrong, and this wasn't that spectacular, given Jimbo laughed it off and stated he'd have done the same thing. As for AfDs, non-admins can close them, and experienced ex-admins certainly can, if they do it badly they will get reversed (as here). Indeed saying "only admins" can close, leads to the type of arrogance by dint of office of which you rightly complain. Maybe demon isn't civil, but that's actually not the reason for much of the oposition, it seems to be a lot of it is people miffed at some decisions he made (deleting their silly categories) that they don't like. As I say, things that get reversed quickly are no worry on a wiki (particularly when they have zero impact on content). Far more worrying is the fact that those that scream that admins should be open to recall, and currently demonstrating why most admins say "em, no thanks".--Doc^g 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And this bit? "I can't quantify the number of professors, grad students, doctors, enthusiasts, bibliophiles who came here intrigued -- excited even! -- encountered the rudeness behind the scenes; who decided, quietly, that it wasn't worth it. No retired banner, no parting speech, no good-bye notes on talk. Just one day their contributions stopped coming and nobody notices the Featured Articles that they never wrote." Very difficult to quantify. Where should the balance be struck? Are grizzled old campaigners the best ones to judge this? Does the bias towards tech-savvy younger people contribute to this culture? Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Doc... you know you can't see the incivility that never happened :) I understand your point but I do think it cuts both ways. I don't agree with all the opposers either, but a lot of people are very specifically opposing for the rudeness/drama factor. (FWIW, my statement above about "only admins" is descriptive of the situation I see, not that which I'd prefer. It's decidedly not how I wished things worked, I certainly agree this attitude is part of the problem, and you'll never see me off wonking somewhere otherwise.) I think I've failed to communicate clearly because I actually completely agree a bad deletion or two is quickly undone -- I've supported lots of people who've seriously boned up -- it's the arrogance that can't be reverted. Your point about people opposing for deleting their silly categories is not interesting to me, because in fact nobody is opposing for this reason. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Hello. We've been hard at work on the article since you last looked at it. Can you support the FA now, or do you have any further concerns? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

Why have you unilaterally decided to delete this page when there is a on-going discussion on the talk page? There is no consensus. The appropriate avenue would be an AfD if that is your goal. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't use AfD for merges. And we routinely merge stuff like this.--Doc^g 18:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't a merge -- no text of this article was merged to the other article, the purpose of merging. This is a de facto AfD. And, importantly, there has been no consensus. Obviously I won't revert anymore and will use the dispute process to resolve this. But because there is no consensus, you will be in an edit war with others. This is tendentious when there is an ongoing, civil discussion. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow problematic articles to stand whilst we debate their propriety. We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus. Anyway, you are the only one edit warring.--Doc^g 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You may characterize us as "politically motivated" but that borders on a lack of civility. Problematic articles are all over Wikipedia and they are not deleted without the proper process of AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also take issue with the unfortunate characterization "politically motivated." I have had a hand in shepherding this article since its recreation after two speedies. I stayed with the page specifically to be sure we avoided most inferences and controversy. I believe we're doing a very fair job with a potentially nasty situation. Doc, I thought your characterizations of the winter recess rollback fiasco were heroic; I felt as if you'd encapsulated my feelings, and while I didn't say so at the time, I appreciated your bluntness. In this, I disagree with your characterization, and urge you to look at the page's edit history before you sling mud at strangers, even inadvertently. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is not deletion. The content remains for those working on the other article to access and use if they wish. It is a common mistake by people new to wikipedia to confuse the two. Special rules apply to BLPs anyway. The article will be dealt with shortly.--Doc^g 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not new. This is a de facto deletion. "We" don't do that. Please be sure to point me to where this is being resolved. I'll go ahead and post this to the bio dispute board. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tis already there.--Doc^g 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tis. A solution that reflects consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh?--Doc^g 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect user meant "sunlight is good disinfectant." BTW, thank you for listing the article at AfD. I really appreciate this process, even though I oppose its intent. (I can't believe I just thanked someone for initiating a process with which I disagree; this is Wikipedia, after all). I've been studying deletion procedures this week under the watchful eyes of User:Jerry, so this will be more enjoyable to watch, even if it doesn't go my way. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour

Thanks for making me laugh. :D Your user page is quite funny. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent admin intervention needed at the Hummus article

Hi Doc: My attention was drawn to the Talk:Hummus page, see Talk:Hummus#Hebrew/jewish/Israeli references and Talk:Hummus#RfC where some users are deploying the worst kind of blatant antisemitic and Anti-Zionist vitriol in violation of WP:HATE and WP:CIVIL, over a minor food article, yet, unbelievable. There are comments there that should be deleted on sight as well. Please check out that page and the violating editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting endorsements and cluttering up RFC pages

1. Please take a look at the very bottom of the RFC page and you'll see why I moved your lengthy comments to the Talk page. It's consistent with guidelines on this matter
2. Please do not delete endorsements you disagree with, as you did with mine. --Leifern (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is inconsistent with the guidelines to have a vote to close an ongoing RfC, to which people are still contributing. I gave reasons why that was wrong. Please do not remove them, as if it were simply a vote. That's why I reverted you.--Doc^g 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've had a chance to review what I'm referring to, I have to wonder why you're bending the truth:

1. I didn't remove your comments - I simply moved them to the place they belong. Again, see the very bottom of the page, where it's pretty clear where comments go.
2. This does not explain why you deleted my endorsement of the closure.--Leifern (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)