User talk:Doc glasgow

I've filed an RfC on my own actions here:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow

BattleMaster

??? ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it: !!!. ~ trialsanderrors 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK--Doc^g 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, others didn't find it and opened a deletion review. Even after pointing this out, they continue to believe it should be overturned. Please swing on by. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 18#BattleMaster GRBerry 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job

Hats off to you for a courageous use of good judgement here: [1] Cheers! Kla'quot 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to comment about a category dispute

Hello, Doc Glasgow! I noticed that you were involved in deleting Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, and since there's a big war breaking out I'd like to invite you to comment here. You're not in trouble or anything, I just want this problem to be done with. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My deletion was endorsed - I don't think I've anything else to say.--Doc^g 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School

Doc, are you sure about "no consensus" for this one? A very solid majority of the votes were for deletion, and the only real arguments on either side can be summed up as "Schools are notable" and "Middle schools are not notable", as far as I can see. And in the past, ordinary middle schools have generally been judged non-notable on AFD. Regards, Brianyoumans 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. 10 want deletion of all, 6 want something else. 10vs6 not a consensus.--Doc^g 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachel Carson Middle School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brianyoumans 14:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Groan.--Doc^g 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to clean things up, by the way. Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School and the Liberty Middle School one were multiple AFDs, and it looks like you only removed the notices and all for the title articles. For Rachel Carson I went through and replaced the AFD notices with delrev notices, but I didn't put anything on the talk pages about the AFD. I'm not contesting your closure of the Liberty Middle School one, but I noticed that that one has the same problem (and I imagine you probably have better tools for doing the grunt work.) --Brianyoumans 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have mass tools. I get around to it, but no time ATM, thanks for what you've already sorted.--Doc^g 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Vietnamese companies by industry

I would in fact be interested in having this deleted list userfied so that I can categorize the contents, if no one else has taken up the task. Please? --Brianyoumans 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Doc^g 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Globulation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You recently deleted this article as a recreation of previously deleted content. Actually, the most recent AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globulation 2 (2nd nomination), was closed as "keep"; the logs for this page indicate that it was restored for DRV, and never re-deleted until today. I respectfully request that you restore this page. Thank you. John254 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorry, done--Doc^g 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Body count on 3RR patrol

No worries, Zilla can count to three. Acquire many new skills! [2] Bishzilla | ROAR 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but for 3RR patrol you have to count to four, which is much more complicated, though this little user is sure that 'zilla could do it. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick RfA > RfC

• I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New Users

Sorry for reverting you at this page. I'd rather push people to discuss this at the foundation-l list were more people can look in. This would also resolve whether my interpretation of foundation issues is indeed correct. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you, but I rather resent you reverting me. Not everyone is on the mailing list, so I don't see how that's necessarily a wider audience. If the foundation say it is a foundation issue then mark it as rejected by the foundation. But the page you are citing does not at all support your allegation. It ways no editing restrictions on non-logged in users. The proposal doesn't do that. In any case, we already restrict article creation to logged in users, so I can't see how you can argue that restrictions on article creation are not allowed.--Doc^g 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discouraged section

Hello Doc, that section was added as a stub... having you been following the WT:UP#JOKE discussion? (→Netscott) 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks awful, if a whole load of things are added to it, it can be broken off later. But then a whole load more things would be instruction creep. No need for a stub unless we envisage a whole lot more instructions, do we?--Doc^g 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well relative to the storm the thing caused one thing was very evident and that was that nearly all views agreed that simulation should be discourarged. Without the additional section this new addition finds itself under a heading that says, "What can I not have on my userpage?" which is a bit confusing. It is perhaps a minor point and your CREEP concerns are valid but my editing was what appeared to be most in accord with what appeared to be a community consensus. Cheers. (→Netscott) 11:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It think there's no problem in listing this in the 'no allowed' section, as long as the fact it is discouraged rather than banned is clear. Readers are generally intelligent enough to get it.--Doc^g 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's more of a problem that readers are too intelligent and will use anything they can to wikilawyer. If it's directly under a header that says "...not allowed...", that fact will be used as a reason for deleting the banner from someone's page and then hitting them with vandalism warnings when they put it back and finally ending up with an AN/I fight or wheel war. I think the current case has shown us that you don't even have to be as explicit as putting it under a header that says not to do something to create this situation. There's no consensus for considering it "not" allowed and only enough consensus for discouragement. The same already happens for deleting valid user warnings from talk pages and that doesn't have a page for the person who sees someone remove them to point to and say "see it's under a header that says 'not allowed'". ju66l3r 16:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So we say 'is allowed but discouraged' - and point it out to the wikilawyers.--Doc^g 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Jack Schaap entry

Doc glasgow, Why was the Jack Schaap article deleted? There was a consesnsus (sp?) and not firm either way. Seems rather sudden. NovumTestamentum 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews

You recently deleted List of Peruvian Jews at Afd. However, I noticed that non-trivial content from that article was merged into List of Latin American Jews prior to deletion. Can you restore the deleted article as a (protected) redirect so the edit history can be maintained? Thanks in advance. --- RockMFR 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who conducted the merge (of 8 names out of 100+). I did not merge content from any of the other minor lists (they all essentially reproduced sections of the main List of Peruvian Jews). -- Black Falcon 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the category that contained all these lists is now empty: Category:Lists of Jewish Peruvians. I'm not sure whether this will speedy-able in 4 days as WP:CSD#C1 seems to require that the category "has never contained anything other than links to parent categories". Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide. -- Black Falcon 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a redirect as particularly useful: who'd search for 'List of Peruvian Jewish x'. However, I'm willing to restore the history of any article on request, for the purposes of merging, if anyone indicates that to be their intention. Is there a concrete, rather than a hypothetical need for the history? I'm afraid I'm not up on category rules, but I'm willing to speedy it if there are no objections.--Doc^g 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page to which I was referring was List of Peruvian Jews, not the derivative "List of Peruvian Jewish X" pages. I could, of course, create the redirect myself, but a user noted that the history of pages from which content has been merged should be preserved as redirects under GFDL guidelines. I'm not overly familiar with GFDL guidelines, so I assumed this to be true.

As for the category, I certainly have no objections to its speedy deletion, but I can just as easily take it to WP:CFD in 2-3 days. -- Black Falcon 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What's funny is in my vain attempt to try to implement IZAK's view on List of Chilean Jews by moving all the red links to the talk page and trying to organize the sourced ones, I was reverted and later "warned" like a vandal by User:Runcorn. It seems even cleaning up the list isn't what is wanted. Usedup 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Peruvian Jews. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Newport 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Grant (British East India Company), 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc^g 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Loch Arkaig treasure

You left a message on my talk page but I think you've got the wrong person. Might it have been meant for DrKiernan? MLilburne 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Sorry to trouble you.--Doc^g 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought...

...because we're going to be battling this as a community until it's addressed, wouldn't it be a better idea to open a DRV subpage, sprotect the bugger, make a suffrage point (100 edits and 3 months as of today, for instance), hash it out, and be done with it? Yeah, it's unorthodox, but the discussion at AN seemed to indicate that more than a couple established, respected editors here saw value in having the article. If the deletion is endorsed, then at least people have had their say, and if not, we know where the community stands? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's what'll happen, but I want no part of it. The community plays its games on notability and inclusion/exclusion and the slugfests happen. But ultimately, whether some garage band/school/church or pokemon gets an article or doesn't is not of any existential significance. You or I may be more or less inclisionist than the community - but the community wins - and we shrug. This is different. I have an ethical problem here. And it is that sometimes wikipedians don't stop and think that there is a real world out there, and with the power of this media comes some human responsibility. Hosting unnecessary articles on unfortunate non-entities, and then subjecting them to endless comment, which is permanently recorded all over the internet, is sick. It is wrong. Sinful, even. I want no part of it. If the community by some strange chance concludes otherwise, then the community can go to hell.--Doc^g 01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda funny that you call my attempts to make sure people's voices are heard disruptive, but not Sam's early closure. You know I respect you, Doc, but that comment was way, WAY out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, if we are not careful, the discussion herein splinters into wheel wars and conflicting results. Sam closed the DRV - I think rightly as the result was clear (even if you don't think it is right). His closure is being reviewed on ANI. If he's not got support, he'll get reversed. A second DRV will solve nothing - the result is disruptive, even if that is not the intention.--Doc^g 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy way to not wheel war is to not do disruptive closes to begin with. If you were concerned with that, you'd simply revert the controversial close to begin with and not force other people's hands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the the better thing to do is to discuss the close. If you have support, it will be reversed.--Doc^g 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, as if that's going to happen. The better thing to do is to not be disruptive to start. I'm appalled that you're supporting it, honestly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuking List of Internet phenomena

Wasn't that a bit drastic? Many of the people listed had articles, as well; do you plan to submit them for deletion? -- Jay Maynard 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP NUKING THE ARTICLE WITHOUT DISCUSSION! -- Jay Maynard 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to replace any item if you can supply a reliable source. But WP:BLP requires the removal of any item on any individual, which may be negative, and is not properly sourced. There is no discussion to have.--Doc^g 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I ask again: are you going to go to all of the linked articles you're nuking from this list? If not, why nuke this article? This seems like major vandalism, not WP:BLP or anything else. The least you could have done is warned folks you were about to rip the very guts out of the article on its talk page. If I knew where to complain, I would, but 1) I'm powerless, and 2) you're an admin, so any complaint is likely to be dismissed out of hand. -- Jay Maynard 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly simple, we err on the side of removal with biographical information. If you can provide a reliable source, you can replace the information. But we discuss from the place where we can be sure we're not libelling anyone, rather than the other way about.--Doc^g 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I objected to nuking entries linked to other articles. If there's an article for that subject, then WP:RS should apply there, and if the article is nuked, then nuke the entry here (though that destroys the usefulness of the article as a place to put Internet memes that don't rate articles of their own - one of the reasons it survived an AfD). As it stands, however, this article will be reduced to a skeleton, and that's not useful at all. -- Jay Maynard 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that any entry that points to an article should be restored, and intend to do this unless you give me a good reason not to - and threats of blocking aren't good enough. That's just using your admin powers in a content dispute. -- Jay Maynard 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One more question: What about an entry linked to an article with sources? Must those sources be repeated in the list? Why? Isn't that horribly wasteful? -- Jay Maynard 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I also note that your threat to block anyone who reverts your destruction is extremely intimidating. -- Jay Maynard 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is intended to intimidate people into not breaching policy, so I don't have to block them. But it is better to warn people off, rather than to have to block them.--Doc^g 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That assumes your application of policy is infallibly correct. -- Jay Maynard 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As ever! Check WP:BLP - uncited negative material gets removed. Tell me where I erred? --Doc^g 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with the assumption that merely having an entry in that list was negative. Many were nothing of the sort, including mine - which I originally wrote, and someone elsechanged to be less negative. -- Jay Maynard 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, if it is encyclopedic, a reliable source shouldn't be a problem, and perhaps you should avoid WP:AUTO--Doc^g 21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it before I knew about WP:AUTO. Others have since validated it, and I haven't touched it since. (That's why I haven't replaced it, even though there are reliable sources in the Jay Maynard article.) What I'm objecting to is the huge amount of work you destroyed, and the huge amount of redundant work you're demanding to make the article useful again... in fact, I'm seriously considering saying "screw it!" and submitting it for AfD: it's not likely to ever be useful again, thanks to you. -- Jay Maynard 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a good citation must be given after a negative assertion. Because, fundamentally, we are not saying x is true, we are saying 'x is true according to this source'. To make a negative assertion on one article and suppose that it is attributed on another is quite unacceptable.--Doc^g 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I think you have this very backwards. Anything on ths list, pointing to / summarizing an existing other WP article, should not be removed from the list due to BLP. If there are BLP concerns with the article then deal with it there. If there are BLP concerns with the summary on the list, it should be cleaned up. But deleting it off the list is... just completely wrong. If we can have an article about it, we can list it under the parent phenomenon. If we shouldn't have an article on it, the article should go away, but start at that end not the list. This just feels so so wrong to me. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. No. The List didn't just contain a list - it made statements about the individuals concerned. BLP states all such must be sourced. The onus is not on me to fish the sources from elsewhere and to check they say what they are claimed to say. The onus is on the one who wishes to keep the statements to source them and then replace them. BLP is deliberately designed that way to make sure we err on the side of exclusion not inclusion. If it was that easy to source the statement on the list, then those that wished them kept should have done that and replaced them rather then fighting me. We've have our policy this way so that busy people like me that specialise in BLP enforcement can do our job without let or hinderance. Bulk replacing material removed under BLP without sourcing it is uite unacceptable - and the party was well warned.--Doc^g 09:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue is also under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. Eluchil404 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Em, yes, I know. I put it there? --Doc^g 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/mess/block/etc.

I'll respond to the RfC, and try and show my side tomorrow due to a lack of time on my end. I can already say that I'm very surprised by how I worded the block, as it certainly was not a "content" dispute. Did I agree with you on the discussion between you two? Actually, yes, you were right that there were violations of WP:BLP. However, I felt that a block when he was adding them back and gradually adding sources was a bit harsh. Then again, i was even more hasty in unblocking him, and NYB basically sums up my mistake well. To me it became a question of whether WP:COI and WP:BLOCK are overriden by WP:BLP. Consensus clearly shows that this is the case, and perhaps ym actions were wrong. I would have really liked you to go to RfC first as opposed to blocking, but you at least sent it where it belonged in the end, and hoefully the matter can be put to rest when the RfC closes (as Jmaynard has apparently left anyway). In a nutshell, I should've explained by unblock far better if I was actually going to do it, and I apologize with the way I handled it.--Wizardman 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. However, reinserting BLP violations with the promise of future sourcing is clearly unacceptable. BLP violations must be immediately removed. My initial removal, rollback and block were not separate actions, but all part of the work of enforcing BLP. I was not acting as editor then admin, I was acting as BLP enforcer with all the tools at my disposal. Could I have RfCd rather then blocking? Absolutely not. We don't talk whilst BLP violations sit, we remove them then talk. Since the discussion indicated that maynard had no respect for this, a block was necessary, the only only sure way of preventing him replacing the stuff. I'd have been happy with him being unblocked (indeed I've had done it myself) as soon as it was clear he 'got it' - but the discussion on his userpage, indicated the opposite. With hindsight, it may have looked better had I got another admin to block, however my usual channel to seek speedy and discrete assistance with BLP things is IRC. And unfortunately you know what crap I'd have taken had I started a discussion in the admins' channel with "hey, will someone consider blocking an established wikipedian for me?". Since the tools to do this job are already limited - I cannot accept further limits. Faced with the same circumstances, I would probably do the same thing again.--Doc^g 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONG

This could get tedious and repetitive, especially now that people allege that it's used a lot in AFD but refuse to prove that. Perhaps we should drop the page on MFD? >Radiant< 12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, even if it does get cited a lot on AfD, that would be irrelevant. Guidelines need to reflect consensus, this one doesn't, since there is none. Unfortunately, I suspect MfD would 'speedy keep'. We could have a poll to demonstrate the lack of consensus, but I really hate polls.--Doc^g 12:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

John P Doll

Agreed about personal information. I think you targeted the wrong person though. I wasn't the one who added the kids' names or his wife's last name. It does seem reasonable to write about the guy's background and legislative agenda, both of which you deleted though. I didn't add those things either, actually. I have no knowledge of the guy. I only improved wording, wikified, and reverted vandalism. --Appraiser 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry misread the history. However, the background and agenda need citations if they are included.--Doc^g 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

So now we're dicussing it in two places at once? – Steel 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, just noticed your close. What a mess this whole thing is. – Steel 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Unless you are acting for the foundation do not delete this article again. There is nothing wrong with allowing debate in the proper venues.Geni 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)