User talk:Doug Bell

Note: I usually respond to comments on the talk page on which they are made. If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond on your talk page and I will reply there. If you leave a comment on this page, I may respond on your talk page—please be sure to specify if that's where you would like me to respond—but most likely will only respond here, so please keep an eye on this page for my response. I greatly prefer to keep the entire discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it across multiple pages.

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006 February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006 April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006 August 1, 2006 – November 27, 2006 November 28, 2006 – December 14, 2006 December 14, 2006 – February 7, 2007

Riana's RfA

Hi there, the support vote was a joke. I know that I have to wait for her to accept and for the page to be listed at RfA, and even though I like her personally, I still think that it's my responsibility to read her answers and to more thoroughly review her contributions before choosing how to vote. Thanks for responding. --Kyoko 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda daunting... as in, if I reach 100, I have to be just that good :) I'm trying not to keep an eye on it too much, but then I'm scared someone will ask me something incredibly soul-searching and I won't see it, so I'm kinda fidgety right now. riana_dzasta 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Everyking's RfA

Please note an RfA is not a vote, but a discussion, so I'm entitled to "badger" as you put it. I have harassed nobody at all, and as it is Proto has still not explained why he wouldn't ever trust him again. Please don't tell me to stop doing things I am allowed to do. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not tell you what to do, I asked. Please be civil as you have asked others. In a discussion, someone can say "I don't think that's a good idea." That opinion can be judged for its value based on the reputation and experience of the person making it. That is a contribution to the discussion, not a vote. They can choose to elaborate on why it's not a good idea, and that adds further to the discussion, but the statement itself is still part of the discussion, not a vote. Nobody is required to add anymore to the discussion than they choose, and for you to make disparaging remarks about another person's contribution to the discussion, when the sole basis of your complaint is simply that they did not contribute enough, is badgering and at best impolite and at worst incivil. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please stop" is telling me what to do. I don't really know where I wasn't civil, but to call my comments badgering is incivil. It's a discussion, so I can comment where I like and as much as I like. In this case, Proto put Absolutely not. That is what I call impolite – not only is it degrading to the candidate, it helps the discussion no further. Why absolutely not? What has the candidate done to deserve such a strong two word !vote? Same with your comment – simply putting oppose means nothing in a discussion. What you've done is voted. A sensible bureaucrat would normally ignore votes. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stop" is telling you what to do, "Please stop" is asking. English 101. The bureaucrat is free to weigh anyone's comments as they see fit. The same goes with support. I don't see you querying Terence Ong about his reasons for supporting, and a bureaucrat may well decide to discount his contribution as well. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is general etiquette to provide a reason for opposing – the candidate should be "innocent until proven guilty". And support traditionally means they agree with the nomination. That's why I don't question Terence, and anyway, I often support without comment myself. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have participated on at least 100 RfAs and this is only the first (or maybe second, not positive) time I've left an oppose without stating my reasons. I will leave it to the bureaucrat to decide whether to take my comment in light of my past reasoning or to discount it. I prefer not to get into my reasons, but I have them. I think Proto's response to your request was quite clear, and nearly identical to Radiant's immediately preceeding oppose, which you seem to have no issue with. It was your followup response that I found to be badgering and bordering on incivility, not your initial request for clarification, especially since with his response to your request, Proto's reasons are as well stated as many other opposers. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! at least stated why he opposes; Proto didn't. He did indeed explain vaguely after I asked; it was the edit summary (as I said) that bothered me: "constructive and polite response to patronising". If he had simply put "reply" or whatever I would have taken the issue no further, but he obviously has a problem with clarifying himself, if he finds it patronising. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice colour scheme

Aah #2F4F4F - like that colour, now I got the code....cheers Cas Liber 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you might have worded things better

Hello, I ended up following the whole thing between you and Sarah and Riana and Spawn, and I thought I would say that you might have worded things a little better and perhaps gotten a better response from Spawn Man. I've left my own message on his talk page, and I hope he takes it to heart. --Kyoko 09:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, but I'm tired of his antics. While that's probably the most uncivil thing I've said here at Wikipedia, it's also accurate and nowhere near as uncivil as his comments have been. At this point I'm not going to tiptoe around his tantrums anymore. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you made the comments, and I chose to write something on his page because I was pretty offended by what I see as an abuse of Riana's talk page, especially when she has worries in real life. I hope you agree with what I wrote on Spawn Man's talk pagee. I'm concerned about him, that he might be acting this way out of problems in RL, but that's not something I can or should fix for him. I hope things get better for everyone, including Spawn. --Kyoko 09:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sordid" is precisely the right adjective. Glad you enjoyed that: if the whole thing wasn't at such an inappropriate time it would be so funny I'd be rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter, but as it is it just isn't amusing. I've seen a few things that have angered me at Wikipedia, but nothing so revolted me as that. Criminy. What a wikidrama to wake up to in the morning...Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW you may like to check the history of Jimbo's talk. Feel free to revert me if you like, maybe that should be allowed to stand. Then again, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I might revert back to Spawn's version - I understand the motive behind it, but hell, everyone else seems to use Jimbo's talk as a sounding board. It'd be disrespectful to Spawn to not let him have his say. I don't mind if Jimbo wishes to step in, either (although I doubt he would, in a hundred million years). riana_dzasta 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to revert it. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fake messages bar

Oh thank God! :) Glen 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wranglers 04 userpage

I have no idea if this is the proper way to communicate right now, but I'll give it a shot.

Today, February 10th I logged on to my userpage and discovered it has been deleted by you. My userpage. It told about myself, it told of my wikipedia expierence, and you deleted it. At first during the deletion many claimed I wasn't an active member of Wikipedia.. that assumption was quickly verified. Following which the claim was it was used for "advertising", that point quickly stumbled upon my defense. Then it was it didn't have enough content about my Wikipedia expierences, I added a section. Though it was small I admit, but it was there. Did you delete my userpage for personal reasons? Because quite frankly, I'm stumped right now. A year ago I created the original Wranglers_04 section in Wikipedia's main space, a moderator kindly moved it to my userpage, a year later its gone. My personal userpage, who of which the average Wikipedia user (and probably the above average at that) would have never seen in the first place.

Doug, honest to God, tell me what was wrong with it. Try not to use some B.S excuse (yes, I said b.s, that stands for bull sh*t), and talk to me. My effort, my work into that page is gone like a snap, unsaved. This is demoralizing. I've never "spammed" wikipedia, I've never been abusive, sure I guess my use of words in the deletion debate could have been better but that's out of a burst of passion and pride to my work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wranglers 04 (talk • contribs).

First, this is a fine venue for communicating regarding your deleted user page.

The reason why this page was deleted is that it does not conform with what is allowed on user pages. User pages are not for creating or keeping articles that have themselves already been determined not appropriate for inclusion here. User pages are not personal pages for people to put any content they'd like on. As the closing administrator for the deletion discussion, it was my job to read the arguments on the talk page, evaluate the basis of those arguments, and then determine what the consensus of the discussion was in relation to Wikipedia policies.

While I can understand your frustration with people just posting shortcuts to policy pages like WP:USER, if you are interested in understanding what is allowed and why people think that your page does not meet that criteria, I really suggest that you do read the "link to a B.S site".

Neither Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) nor 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs) (which I assume is you) have made any edits to Wikipedia outside of the User:Wrangler 04 user page, the previous Wranglers 04 article and the deletion discussion. This does not constitute being an active contributor, although it wouldn't really matter anyway as the content of the deleted page would be inappropriate in either case. Note also that most of the other contributors to the deleted page—68.203.244.250 (talk · contribs), Jerseyboy92 (talk · contribs), 70.182.94.68 (talk · contribs), and 69.37.50.46 (talk · contribs)—have also not made any edits outside of these pages. This constitutes a use of this Web site for purposes entirely separate from building an encyclopedia, and therefore they were deleted. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, why should I take the heat of what userpages are and what they aren't? Was the moderator who moved my material there incorrect? It outrages me to hear it was "inappropriate".. I'd love for you to talk to the moderator who moved my material and discuss the manner, because clearly I guess I'm out of it and it was very "wrong" for me to do this. I've seen several other userpages here at wikipedia who of which do not include the criteria you included.

So because I said "link to a B.S site", my userpage is not credible. Unbelievable.

Secondly, you are incorrect on your assesment of my editing. If you look at the Austin Wranglers wikipedia page you will see I have added over 10 paragraphs concerning the team, feversishly updating whenever a move is made. On top of this, I have added on to CJ Miles' wiki, along with contribting to Westwood High School of Austin, Texas. In addition I have made several others on other respective sites. I am extremely dissapointed in your lack of research which leads me to ponder what other mistakes you have made.

You aren't (or shouldn't be) taking the heat for the page. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be deleted, but given that another administrator moved it there, nobody should be "giving you heat". I understand that some of the comments on the MfD (the deletion discussion) were either abrupt, or assigning motives to you that may not have been accurate. Please don't take any of that personally.

Your "B.S." comment had no bearing on the decision. The only point I was making about that comment was that it indicated that you weren't availing yourself of the explanations people were trying to offer. It would help your cause to become familiar with the policies.

My assessment of your editing is based on the contributions by Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) and 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs). If you've edited anonymously under other IP addresses, I would have no way of knowing that.

One other thing, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I'm not a spammer, I'm not a hater. I don't feel like going in circles over this whole ordeal.. I will agree to add thick and thorough details over my Wikipedia usage and edits I have made over the past, plus I will continue to edit under Wranglers_04. If possible I would like to have my original content below it if possible.

I've seen how other users here set up their pages-- some with the buttons representing their interests and such.

Wranglers 04 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

We're not haters either. As I said above, even if you were a prolific contributor, the page would be inappropriate. It is not written as a breif list of your interests, but rather as an encyclopedic article. Further, although I don't quite understand its significance, the discussion of your business interest is also against policy. Wikipedia user pages are not to be used for any commercial interests or advertising. Including a mention of your message board id on your user page if fine. Including a lengthy article written in the third person chronicaling your history of message board participation is not. People are allowed to include a short bio, but aren't allowed to include their resumé. User pages are not for promotion, advertisement or social networking. The purpose is to support your activities writing an encyclopedia here. People are allowed some measure of leeway with this policy, but your page was outside the boundaries of this leeway. The fact that no record of your participation in the encyclopedia was evident further cuts the slack allowed to zero.

The decision to delete the page was not mine, although had I offered an opinion in the matter, it would have been to delete the page. The decision was based on Wikipedia policies and the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion. I can't see much on the page that would be allowed. If you want a copy to move to another site off Wikipedia I will be happy to provide the deleted content to you—just ask. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the deleted content. Thanks. Wranglers 04 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

OK, I've restored the content. I will delete it again in a couple of days, so get it before then. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zapptastic/chess

Inasmuch as I've undertaken on one or two occasions to quibble with an administrative action of yours, I imagine that I ought to offer my compliments on your close of the instant MfD; I'd intended to suggest such a resolution myself (prima facie evidence, of course, of its wisdom) but think, more importantly, that you accurately appreciated for what general action a consenus lay, notwithstanding that no single editor appeared to have explicitly endorsed such specific action. For your fine exercise of good judgment, you receive the treasued good on ya! [my substitute for a barnstar; were there one for demonstrating your brilliance by agreeing with me, you'd surely deserve one :)]. Cheers, Joe 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list

I don't understand your actions here. You closed it as delete, then changed to merge, then deleted the revision where you changed to merge? --NE2 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I rather made a mess of the closing. The original decision to delete is the final decision. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be wrong with a single list of songs in Dance Dance Revolution, or possibly just list of licensed songs in Dance Dance Revolution? Also, why did you delete the revision when you could have just reverted? --NE2 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is the policy referenced in the decision. There is nothing encyclopedic regarding the song lists and they add little or nothing to the articles. Which is a point made by several of the comments in the discussion. I probably should have just reverted, but I was trying to head off any confusion...probably just created more. If that's an issue for you, I'll restore my intervening edit and revert it, but I don't think it really matters. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw your deletion was "he's trying to hide something"; it's probably not true but it could be seen that way. Anyway, I don't think you realize what "indiscriminate" means; a list of songs included in a specific game - a game that's music-based - is very discriminate. --NE2 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe indiscriminate is not quite the correct description. Providing the list does not contribute to an encyclopedic discussion of the game. It is merely listing all of the elements of the game. It would be like including a list of all of the levels in a video game. After seeing this series of articles, I'm thinking of recommending that the articles themselves be merged into a single article that discusses the entire series of games as the primary distinction between them seems to be the list of included songs. If you think I've misread the consensus in the AfD you can open a deletion review. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that this decision will be used in the future to speedy-delete a better-structured list, like one of songs that Konami has licensed for DDR. --NE2 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any "list of elements" for a product is going to be encyclopedic, regardless of how well formatted it is. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These songs are basically what the game is about. Generally it would make sense to include the songs on the article about the game, like Guitar Hero nd Guitar Hero II, but there are a large number of repeats in the DDR series, so it might be better organizationally to create one article. --NE2 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Particularly when the distinction between the individual elements is negligible. Whereas a list of characters in a series of books might have a place here because something specific and unique can be said about each of them, a list of elements that are not themselves sufficiently distinguishable does not seem to be to be encyclopedic. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have individual articles about some of the licensed songs (Get Busy for instance), and articles for most of the artists. Linking together the two is a navigational matter. --NE2 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the relation of each song to the game is basically the same. There is nothing specific or unique to say about the individual songs as they relate to the game other than listing non-encyclopedic details such as which songs can be used in which mode in the game. The fact that some of the song may have articles on them is not germain because those articles have nothing to do with the Dance Dance game. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were making such a list, I would not include "non-encyclopedic details such as which songs can be used in which mode in the game". It would simply be a full list of songs that Konami has licensed for the game. --NE2 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced of any encyclopedic value, but it's really not a matter of convincing just me. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

However, couldn't your "delete" close be used to speedy-delete a similar list in the future as a "recreation of deleted material"? --NE2 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you recreated all of the individual articles, yes. If you created a single article with the list, maybe. If you added the list to the Dance Dance Revolution article then it's a content discussion not a deletion discussion. But I don't think a list of that size is appropriate in the article or as a separate list article. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the suggestion to merge the articles as it would be much more useful and comprehensive to have a single article discussing all the aspects of the series rather than something like 50 different articles with largely identical content except for song lists and release specifics. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your view, although I question the feasibility - This will require a complete rewrite of this article. SYSS Mouse 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That will take far less effort than editing 50 separate articles each time a correction or addition to the common text is made. It would also make the entire entry more useful. Really, who is going to come here interested in the specific differences between all the different versions other than someone better served by a fan web site. Anyone wanting information on the game is much better served by a single, well-written article. The only significant difference is the song lists, and as I discuss above and was discussed at the deletion discussion, those extensive, also largely duplicated, lists are not encyclopedic and should go anyway. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents

Hello Doug,

I was a participant in this discussion and know that several editors had suggested keep and rename. I just wanted to double check that you in fact decided that a rename was not to be the outcome of that discussion, or is that to be left open for another discussion now that the page has been kept? Sancho McCann 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing any position on the renaming in closing the discussion. That would best be discussed on the talk page. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sancho McCann 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And please stop closing things by WP:SNOW. It's controversial and divisive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's neither controversial nor divisive as evidenced by community consensus. Whether you find it so personally is not relevant. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You're incorrect. It's very controversial, and very divisive. Do not do it in the future. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been reverted!

Doug,

While the decision not to delete the article on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation was disappointing, I must say that your reasoning was certainly well-considered and fair.

Apparently, not all are as satisfied, however. In case you're not aware of it, CaveatLector has reverted your tag removal from the Talk page, with the explanation: "I'm sorry, but only the members of the LGBT studies project should be able to decide what does and does not belong under the project. This article CLEARLY falls under LGBT studies".

Can a non-Admin. revert an Administrator like that?? JGHowes 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps my question was poorly phrased, instead of "can it be reverted?", more precisely the question is: Having rendered a decision on an AfD and deleted what was felt to be an inappropriate tag in the process for the reasons you gave, may the tag be properly reapplied, thereby nullifying your action? JGHowes 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My removal of the tag was not part of my administrative action. I did that as an editor for the reason I stated. If I still disagree I can discuss it on the talk page. That action by me carries no more weight than if an anonymous IP removed the tag, other than some accord given based on my history here. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You've got some coming. riana_dzasta 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Back at you. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

My friend rang me up & said he edited your page. I'm so f'ed off right now. He could have gotten me blocked & I told him that stuff in confidence. I know I'm meant to be gone & for some bloody reason you've got a vendetta against me, but I am sorry for him vandalising your page. You can believe what you will, but it wasn't me. Spawn Man 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about a vendetta, although you will believe what you want. And I will believe what I want about the Bob The Lemming. Can you say "checkuser"? —Doug Bell ^talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. I'm not him. Geez, what do you have against me? It's a complicated situation, but believe me man, I'm not him. My friend is in deep shit right now... Spawn Man 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell you friend to buzz off if his intentions are disruption. You do good work here on the FA's and stuff like that, so why not let the rest of the stuff go and concentrate on using your talents. Sorry to but in.--MONGO 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't come back. I've made everyone hate me. Everyone thinks I'm a "Look at me" person now, which I'm not. You try putting up with some of the stuff I've had to & edit on here. As I've said (But no one is really listening) the RfA thing was not the real reason for my outburst. It's f'in personal, but no one's getting it. Now everyone hates me & thinks I'm self centred. I probably did blow everything out of proportion, but I was venting about a big event that happened in real life, that I really really don't want to talk about. The way I was handled however was not helpful... I only told my friend half a story. He's a dumass sometimes. He won't be on here again. Spawn Man 05:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, can you just delete his account. He used my nickname anyway & that's just mean using Bob in that way... :) Spawn Man 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict) Check user will be pretty conclusive, so if you're not him, no worries. You can choose to take this personally, or you can own your actions that led to where we are now and accept responsibility for your own circumstances. Despite what you may think, I would like to see you come back, but only if you can leave the immaturity and emotional outbursts at the door. I'm pretty sure nobody hates you, but I'm equally sure nobody appreciates your outbursts. Your choice. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a big shot java guy, but I just have to say the way you talk to me really feels as if you're belittling me. You constantly seem to be talking down to me & that is why I guess I have a problem with me. Check user will show that it came from my comp, but as I said, very complicated situation. Thought I'd say that now for full clarity, but again, it wasn't me. I guess though, once you've made up your mind, I can't change it... Spawn Man 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You said your friend "rang you up" and then you were on the site a minute later. So if that's the case, and if for some strange reason he was at your computer, then the subsequent edits from Spawn Man must be a different location. Otherwise, no need to "ring you up" if you're sitting next to him and then using the same computer as Spawn Man. Right? —Doug Bell ^talk 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I lied, as I said. My brother did do it, but I didn't want him to get wrapped up in everything. As I said, a dumass sometimes... I don't care about the Bob The Lemming acc, I never created it. I have my one & only account here. I know you have children, but I am not one of them so I'd appreciate if you talked to me on my intellectual level. I'm drafting up an apology letter now for the whole drama these past few days... Spawn Man 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But in any case, my Spawn Man account is unblocked right? I seem to be editing normally... And as I said, delete the Bob Lemming account. Spawn Man 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're able to edit normally. I'm looking into it now, but the only explanation is that you are editing from a different IP address. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And no, the Bob The Lemming account won't be deleted, just tagged. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know we've never seen eye to eye, but I think with a little bit of time, you'll make a great admin. I'd love if you held off blocking me (If you ever intended to, not that I did anything wrong as I've explained...) because I am making ammends to me unjust actions. I'm sorry to you Mr. Bell. Hopefully we can continue in a cordial way?

Spawn, where we go from here is completely dependent on your behaviour from here forward. You've gone a bit beyond simply saying sorry to fix everything, although I take your apology at face value. At least with me, and likely with others, you've used up the slack that is normally granted. This doesn't mean there is no redemption, and I hope you will recognize the complete sincerity with which I say this—I truly hope that you do continue here productively, and in harmony and without all the drama. As you state, it will take time and hard work repairing the relationships.

Yes, we haven't seen eye-to-eye much, but I have always tried to be patient and fair. I doubt you see it that way, but then I have trouble seeing things from your perspective as well. I know the comment I left on your user page was hurtful to you, but I hope you have the strength to assess it honestly. I said it because it needed to be said, not because it gave me any pleasure to do so.

I have no axe to grind with you, yet I am not inclined to broker any shennanigans from you either. I was not intending on blocking your Spawn Man account unless you gave me reason to. I strongly suggest you avoid editing Wikipedia when you are angry or upset—this wasn't the first time you've gotten out of control, but I hope it is the last. Let's see where we go from here. Sincerely, —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands

I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for Wikipedia - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Wikipedia. I found it as the second legitimate article on Wikipedia's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs. YechielMan 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)