User talk:Doc glasgow/Nov 07

Declaration of Perth

On 27 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Declaration of Perth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Gladstone's Land, was selected for DYK!

On November 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gladstone's Land, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Bergmann

I was surprised by some of your comments at this AfD -- they didn't sound like you. For the sake of WP:BLP, can you remove the bad stuff? Thanks

For what it's worth, I agree with that article's deletion.--A. B. ^(talk) 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the comments because you asked nicely. But this has nothing to do with BLP. BLP is about our ARTICLES not containing unreferenced statements, which may be factually incorrect or libelous information. Placing my opinions on a *discussion page*, when I'm clearly not making any factual claim but making a subjective moral assessment isn't and can't be libelous - it is called free speech. It is called expressing my personal opinions. It may be incivil and unprofessional but that's as far as it goes. I happen to thing that neo-nazis are beneath contempt. That, for example, Nick Griffin is a ridiculous idiot. I'm entitle to that opinion, and, within reason, I'm entitled to share it. But it isn't particularly helpful of me to do so, so I'll strike it through.--Doc^g 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove

Doc, I think I understand where your point's coming from now. The fact that the canadate opposes another one just because of their age is still illrelevent to how she would use the tools. But please don't make call other people's opionion stupid. You don't have to agree, but I think we should respect other people's opionions.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal against those who expressed it, but I can't respect that opinion, sorry. It is illogical. Further to penalise someone for expressing a perfectly legitimate, if unpopular, view (that young admins can be too immature) sets a very dangerous precedent.--Doc^g 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

striken.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Apologies if I implied you were stupid. That you were willing to reconsider and admit your error clearly shows otherwise. I like people with the good grace to listen and change their minds.--Doc^g 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on GlassCobra's "racist" comment

I agree with your comment on LaraLove's RfA by User:GlassCobra comparing Lara to a racist (see [1]). I find this comment highly offensive and, since it just occurred within the last few hours, feel it should be considered by editors before GlassCobra's RfA is closed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GlassCobra. As such, I have requested a delay in the closing of Cobra's RfA. I'd also suggest you voice your opinion on Cobra's RfA.--Alabamaboy 12:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You miunderstand me. I don't oppose people for their beliefs, or for unfortunate remarks. If there's reason to believe they might misuse the tools (or be too immature to rightly use them) then, and only then, I'll oppose.--Doc^g 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Parking Lot is Full

I see you recently put a speedy tag on the above page, would just like to inform you that it was restored at 04:19 (UTC) on November 2nd (See:here). Should I inform the recreating admin, that the page is about to be speedied with {{subst:Nn-warn}}? Rudget _{Contributions} 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you should do.--Doc^g 15:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay :) Rudget _{Contributions} 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Established users

"Established users hardly ever set out to damage the encyclopedia."[2] Are you quite sure of this? My own observation (unscientific, of course) is that is a significant proportion of vandalism and an even larger proportion of knowingly nonconstructive, senseless conflicts are the work of embittered long-time users who have turned against the project. I'm sure Tony isn't one of them and I'm even more sure that templating these embittered users won't help matters, but I still disagree with the thrust of that statement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Vandalism is a term reserved for behaviour that cannot possibly under any possible scenario be interpreted as good faith. It is behaviour that can only be *deliberately* harmful to the encyclopedia. I've yet to see any established user do that except banned users, and those who want to be banned. Chucking templates on people who are contributing is absurd. That's all.--Doc^g 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree 100% about templating and your response to this particular incident. I guess I was just pondering the larger implication (perhaps wrongly inferred by me) that experience in the project somehow leads to better manners and less deliberate trouble-making. I think POINTiness is but a mutant breed of vandalism, and I certainly see a lot of that from experienced editors.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pontiness is not vandalism. Vandalism is deliberate harm.--Doc^g 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think pointiness is deliberate harm as well. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm merely opining that they experienced editors are up to nearly as many bad-faith shenanigans as the kids who are newly discovering the encylopedia. But perhaps that is a pessimistic view.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more paranoid than pessimistic.--Doc^g 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice  : (. But I guess what I said wasn't very charitable either. Cheers.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Perhaps my sarcasm is too subtle; I was not being serious about a "vote". In any case, I'm cleaning it up. You can nominate it again tomorrow for WP:AfD, or go to WP:DRV. Bearian 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Whilst it isn't the "right result for me", I've no particular problems with your n/c=k close. So maybe afd later....I'll wait and see if it improves.--Doc^g 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: David Emory, if there is more to cut out, do it gingerly. The last thing I want to be accused of is being part of some cabal. LOL. Seriously folks, the delete arguments were that it's all cruft. So I cut out the cruft. However, he's not lacking in notability. Bearian 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

David Wilshire

Hi - regarding your edits to David Wilshire, I think we can fix the problems here without the need for deletion of content - finding references should be no problem at all, but I wondered about your "undue weight" comment - what did you mean by that exactly? Thanks SP-KP 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. I hope it helps.--Doc^g 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied to your reply. Any thoughts? SP-KP 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And a further reply. SP-KP 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching that page. We can keep the discussion there.--Doc^g 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IAR

Re: the edit summary in [3]: Note that the second half of IAR is to not require that we be bogged down with rules and that everyone read all the rules before being allowed to do anything. —Centrx→talk • 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

It looks like you are getting into a edit war with another editor over a link, would you mind explaining what this is about? Tirronan 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea?--Doc^g 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

David Schults AfD

Would you mind looking at the article again? Someone went to a lot of work to improve it and may have done enough to satisfy your objections about the subjects notability. Horrorshowj 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article House of the Binns, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I wanted to apologise to you for being rude to you in the list of Australians in international prisons AfD. I'm sorry for that and understand where you're coming from. (No need to reply to my talk page.) JRG 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no recollection of you insulting me, so no offense has been taken.--Doc^g 12:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

If anyone can sort my wiki markup on this page so that messages don't center, I'd be much obliged!!!!--Doc^g 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried and failed :( Viridae^Talk 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

better to fail than not to try, appreciated.--Doc^g 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All better. There's an unclosed <div> in the {{User:Doc glasgow/tidy}} template, so I closed it after the template. -kotra 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged to you. I'd give you a barnstar if I could find them.--Doc^g 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete of List of notable opponents of PETA

I think it probably would have been better to let the AfD process reach its conclusion naturally for List of notable opponents of PETA, rather than speedily delete the article. My reasoning is that although the apparent consensus at that time was for deletion, it would have been better to allow the full AfD time so that other viewpoints could have had a full chance. I know I have almost missed AfDs before when I was away from the computer for a couple days (through no fault of my own). Also, I don't think it fell under "Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, performing uncontroversial page moves, or cleaning up redirects" because it was an actual article being deleted permanently, not temporarily or to clean up redirects. Not a big deal though, since the consensus probably would have been delete anyway. -kotra 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not guilty. The article was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opponents of PETA - and then deleted by Caknuck. I simply deleted the redirect as housekeeping. Check the logs.--Doc^g 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I was unaware of the move. Sorry to waste your time (and mine... that was a lot of useless text I wrote). -kotra 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"spam"

[4] might interest you. GlassCobra 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dj Markski page deletion

I don't understand why other Dj wiki's exist and this one is different. Why not delete the ski mix 21 then that accompanied it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinhoot (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.--Doc^g 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Johnson

Just to let you know: I removed the prod you placed on the Ruth Johnson page, while rewriting it extensively to highlight her notability and remove obvious puffery. See WP:BIO -- former members of state legislatures are per se notable. The page is no longer such a mess -- thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kestenbaum 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That's what prod is for.--Doc^g 08:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

CNR

Hi,

My philosophy on CNRs at RfD is to stay the heck away from them. There are a few things on earth too tiny to argue over! :) I saw IG's comment -- he's a good guy, and if he really wants to discuss things, I'll be happy to, or he can take it to DRV.

Incidentally, I'm genuinely glad to see that you've taken up the bit again. You always make Wikipedia so much more fun! Best wishes, Xoloz 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Till next time, then :) --Doc^g 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben Whitehouse

I would like to know the basis for removing the article ( actually more of a stub) to artist Ben Whitehouse and request that you restore it. Did you review the links to that page? This artist's new works are routinely displayed in real museums, reviewed by major mass media outlets and the major art journals, His public commissions include major hospitals, hotels, etc. This guy is major, he easily satisfies notability

The basis is that we delete articles that don't make it clear why the person is worth having an encyclopedia article about. Your article gave no evidence that he wasn't just your average painter. If you like, I'll restore the article and you can work on it a bit more, but it still may be that the subject isn't worthy of inclusion. However, if the article gives some indication that he's noteworthy, then it will not be deleted without a discussion or debate in which you can participate. Have a look at our guidelines on biographies and if you think you can make a case that this subject is notable, I will undelete the article and let you improve it.--Doc^g 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Thrall Car Manufacturing Company

I think you erred at Talk:Thrall Car Manufacturing Company.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was mass deleting crap and must have got careless. Now restored. Thanks.--Doc^g 15:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Margret RoadKnight

You're listed as having speedily deleted Margret RoadKnight. Apart from the fact that I believe this is unjustified (800 Google hits, 9 links from within Wikipedia, lots of records etc) isn't the creator of the page supposed to be notified when something like this is proposed. I request that you recreate the page, and if someone wants to propose deletion, I'll argue it out? JQ (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was legitimately speedy deleted under criteria "A7" as lacking any assertion of notability. The article merely said she was a singer - it did not indicate she was of any note, and it gave no secondary sources at all. I'll undelete it if you want, but unless you immediately change the article to show why she is notable and to provide some evidence in secondary sources, it is likely to be promptly deleted again. You might like to take a look at the guidelines on musical notability (WP:MUSIC) to see whether you think she meets them, if you think she does, either recreate the article or ask me to undelete it - but it needs to include sourced claims of why she is worth an encyclopaedia article.--Doc^g 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do recreate it. Again, it would be helpful to notify the creator of the page rather than just deleting.JQ (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recreated it. Unfortunately, we get and delete thousands of articles promoting unknown artists - there's really nothing much we can do other than quickly delete them. To avoid this it is vital that every article gives a reasonable indication of why the person is notable and some sources to verify it. Your article was like thousands that simply say "x is a singer - and here's a link to their site" - we delete these without ceremony or process. That's just the way it has to be.--Doc^g 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK done now. Can you check if the claim to notability is adequate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it now claims notability, on whether it is notable, I express no view.--Doc^g 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Page is gone. :) FCYTravis (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Page is gone. :) FCYTravis (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Elephant

Hi- you just left me a message....

Is the page still not good enough? I have added theatre reviews from LA papers, internal links, external links?

I have been comparing our page to other theatre company pages in LA....can you give me some direction so that the page is not deleted? It would be greatly appreciated....

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatrewizard (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Courtney Love

I understand your removal of the KC suicide dispute section on Talk:Courtney Love, but I think we should retain most of it. I think it would be appropriate just to remove most of Cobaincase's comments, and restore the rest. There were some constructive comments there IMO. Do you think that is fair? -- Reaper X 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know enough about the subject to differentiate. Feel free to replace anything that is going to be useful. But we do have to watch that talk pages don't end up full of scurrilous accusations that would never get into an article. Talk pages are publicly visible too.--Doc^g 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to pipe in and say thanks for your input on the whole thing - as you know I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I've been sticking to subjects I know. I appreciate the way you straightened things out on this page. Chickpeaface (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep at it. Fortunately, it is only occasionally you will encounter unreasonable editors pushing agendas. Don't hesitate to ask for help.--Doc^g 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I went and made an archive, removing some of Cobaincase's comments which I considered violating WP:BLP. Cheers. -- Reaper X 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, although I don't intend to involve myself any further.--Doc^g 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Reformation

Where was your Scottish history template before today? There was nothing there but a small picture of knox which I moved into the body until I added the Religion in the United Kingdom Nav Box. Your edit summary was a touch rude, when my addition was clearly done in good faith. I hope to not edit across you again. -- SECisek (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it appeared rude. I just couldn't see the relevance of an English focused template to the article. Actually, on reflection the Scottish history one isn't great either. A more Christian focused on is better. I've replaced it with the European reformation one now. What do you think?--Doc^g 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey...all yours...the template is supposed to be British based. I guess it isn't there yet. Also, placing the term English Reformation in the body of the text gets it out of the see also section - that was my goal there.

I yanked the reformation template because it destroyed the format due to pics. I apologize as well for the cynicism of my edit summary.best. -- SECisek (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm probably being unjustifiably possessive here. I wrote the article from a stub (using an alternative account) - that tends to make one obnoxious - sorry. I think the European Reformation template is good - I'll just have to work out how to do it without messing my image formats.--Doc^g 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know, as soon as I saw you were going to revert every last change down to your last version, I checked the history to see why you thought you "owned" the article. I saw the amount of work you put in. That still doesn't excuse you from breaching MoS by using See also as a "further reading" section. See also is for links that simply cannot be fit into the body but are still important. All of those links save one or two can. Aren't you an admin? No matter, I am through with the article and the U.K. Christianity template as well. I don't think very much of it, either. I ran across it today and it was almost orphaned and mostly red linked. I thought perhaps I could fix it. There was likely a reason for it being abandonded. -- SECisek (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, sorry for my attitude. I'm not that familiar with the bylaws of the MOS - I tend to go with intuition. I've always felt that key topics should be in a "see also" - as the reader who wants to go further does not necessarily want to scan the whole article to find the link to the "English Reformation". Anyway, I've restored you trimming here, as the template provides an easier link to the English reformation anyway. Templates are strange things, infoboxes used appropriately can add a lot to the article - unfortunately some are over used and not intuitive at all. You're right that British one could be improved. Although I'm not sure that navigating British Christianity as a combined topic is that useful. The reformations cannot be taken in isolation from events in European Christianity. England's reformation is probably connected with Erastus and Luther than with Knox and Calvin - whereas ecclesiologicaly (although not politically) Scotland is more influenced by Geneva than Anglicanism. Although I guess that's all a matter of opinion too. After 1606 the English-Scottish connections are much greater. Anyway, genuinely sorry for reverting rather than talking - and please do feel free to make any improvements you can. I'll not revert you again without discussion - that was bad form.--Doc^g 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I DO edit across you again, cheers. -- SECisek (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)