User talk:Doc9871

ArbCom notification

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and sorry about the late reply. I've been watching it, and it's gone in the direction I figured it might. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [1] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly

for this. Probably the highest concentration of invective I have yet received in my Wikipedia !career. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh - anytime! When I see the "repeating characters" tag on pages I watch, then see crap like that, it's a really quick no-brainer when it comes to rollback. What a jerk! Shut 'em down quick and hard, and hopefully they'll go away eventually. In a perfect world, at least. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for being a "talk page stalker" and commenting at death panel. your comments are/were appreciated. Jesanj (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i was thinking of making an argument on the talk page. but i have a question. am i generally correct here when i talk about the "necessary evil" of staying on topic? additionally, is there a relevant policy or guideline you would refer me to? thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One things that often gets mentioned in various ways is "Dicuss edits, not editors" or "Comment on content, not contributors" - that sort of thing. It seems to be from an essay, [[WP:NOSPADE]], but I'll see if I can find the examples in policy. I know at WP:CIVIL under "Avoiding incivility" it states, "Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation." So staying "on topic" as far as the topic and not editors is absolutely correct: let me know if you meant something else. As far as major changes occurring, this subsection of WP:Editing policy applies. Above in the same policy it says "Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability." Being bold is great, but it should be done within policy. This is another essay I came across that details why blanking sections is bad (including removing references) by pointing out policies. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link [2]. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, did you miss me? <wink> I have to say this year has started out about as strange as it could. This past week was exhausting too but I'm finally out of the hospital, again, and I hope to keep it that way. :) I sent you emails too so heads up. I'll be on here probably a bit at a time. My strength needs to come back plus I'm back on the evil prednisone. Back up to 80 mg and weaning down over the next three weeks, yuck, though great for my appetite, lousy for sleeping, which can make me go from one side of behavior to the other and every emotion in between. Anyways, just dropping in to let you know I am out, well first why I disappeared and that I'm out in case you didn't see my quick comment on my talk page. Take care and talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did you see this Wikipedia:Town sheriff? I'm trying to see what it's all about but my focus is lousy and I'm trying to catch up on discussions there so it's slow going for me to actually understand what this is about. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! I'll check my e-mail. This "town sheriff" thing? Not so sure about that one. It'll be interesting to watch. Cheers :> Doc talk 13:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! If I read the Town sheriff thing, than I think you fall into the title now as sheriff. (hee, hee) Like I said the steroids are going to have me 'weird' for awhile or should I say weirder?  :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

re your take on 'disruption', 'winning' etc

Honestly I don't recall if you asked me not to post here, so I will take the liberty.. Normally I would give an editor the benefit of doubt about 'scare quotes' around phrasing they're using for emphasis or effect, but with you I'm more than weary. I hope you can understand that. -PrBeacon (talk)

I don't care who posts here, as long as it's not a vandal or troll. I'm not really afraid of "tough warnings" from admins contacted, either: blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. I was already done posting there, so I was a little surprised to see the "cavalry" ride in so late ;P Well, I said what I had to about the list, and I haven't been following you around (as edit histories and the passage of time will demonstrate). I watch Glen Gale's page (and LAEC's and yours, among many others), and I'd seen what happened recently and kept out of it until then. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't referring to the warning, I didn't know it was there when I posted the above note. I was merely trying to move off Gwen's page because it was getting ridiculoso. I still think you assume the worst and often only see what fits that assumption, but not consistently. You claim to make disruption your business, but did you ever apply the tough love to LAEC? Doesn't look like it. -PrBeacon (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did for your pal Dylan, and he didn't want to hear it. My advice was "wrong", but he's the one who is indeffed, none the wiser for listening to me. LAEC never had a chance from what I can see. I said disruption was part of what I work on: I also add referenced content and fix references, along with combating petty vandalism on all sorts of pages. FWIW: I'm pretty sure if that particular admin had blocked me for "one more word", the block would have been overturned. He and I were involved in a somewhat nasty prior dispute where he accused me and others without any evidence of improper behavior: falls under "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." My behavior was neither disruptive nor personally attacking, and to threaten a block for ambiguous reasons in that fashion was not hardly warranted. Sorry if I got a little harsh with you, but you weren't exactly bringing out my "warm and fuzzy" side, you know ;> In conclusion: a)LAEC is indeffed, b)I brought up what I did for the reasons I did and no other, and c)I expect this to be the end of this particular matter. You go your way and I'll go mine, and hopefully if we meet again it will be under more pleasant circumstances. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)