User talk:Doc glasgow

Right now, I quit. --Doc^g 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We've stopped being an encyclopedia. We've stopped using common sense. We've taken our eye of the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line. We count sources to determine notability - because we need objective rules. Never mind the fact it is absurd. We fight little wars with monsters of our own imagination. Never mind the fact they cheapen us. We care not for the damage we do to the real world and its real people, or potential we miss, as long as we can make little rules and have little people follow them. I'm sick of the little people and their little rules. For now, I want no part of them.

I may come back next year, next week, or even tomorrow night. But the truth is that the longer I stay away, the more I will like myself.--Doc^g 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a direct or indirect result of List of Internet phenomena, I feel some responsibility for the situation. Please e-mail me. Newyorkbrad 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You've been one of the pillars of common sense and decency - it is more than that.--Doc^g 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then I feel way more responsible..--Wizardman 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure I've added to it, this is just bad. If there's anyone who makes this project better, it's you, so I hope you'll take a night and sleep on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like any other self-organizing tribal system will build its set of rules, and will try to control its inhabitants. And the people with true vision get pushed out.... Join the club. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to develop and apply rules; the project can't be sustained without rules. Process is a wonderful thing. The alternative is that forceful individuals impose their will, which they may call "common sense", on others. Beyond the issue of having a structure based on rules or the absence of rules, there is the issue of whether the structure is controlled by the community or by a few forceful individuals. Community-based rules are ultimately liberating and empowering. We cannot have meaningful community governance without putting rules before "common sense". Everyking 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, the problem is that community rules tend to be the least offensive denominator and a major reason for the mediocre state of wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Damn! Damn! -- Donald Albury 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you resume editing Wikipedia, please ensure that your edits do not damage article formatting. Although entire sections must sometimes be deleted, failing to remove the section header hurts readability and organization! Best wishes, Therealhazel 07:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"We've taken our eye of the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line." Comme ci? (I'm not in any way related to that guy - I don't know who he is even - I just saw your actions and found them a little... silly). 70.82.80.160 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have seen a reference in a location outside Wikipedia claiming that I had something to do with causing Doc glasgow's departure. That is emphatically not the case, and I am sorry if my wording above was somehow misleading. What I meant in my comment above was that my calling attention to unsourced or unwarranted negative comment about non-notable living persons in the article List of Internet phenomena may have drawn Doc's attention to that article, which may have led to some of the subsequent events of last week. For background, see my statement in the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. (The statements of others are worthwhile reading too; they encapsulate certain areas of disagreement very well, although the more mundane aspects of the user-conduct issues are pretty much moot.)

I want to state very clearly that I agree with about 90% of what Doc glasgow has to say about biographies of living persons on Wikipedia, including in the Brian Peppers debate last week and in a much less prominent deletion debate now ongoing at AfD, although he and I have disagreed about some other matters. The suggestion that I was a major cause of Doc departing, as suggested on an external site, is simply a mistake.

Wikipedia is a lesser community when we lose any of our sincere contributors. It is especially true that the type of contributor who would leave over a matter of principle such as the one motivating Doc's departure, is often the type that we can least afford to lose. I hope to see Doc glasgow back here soon, and I hope to see badlydrawnjeff remain, and Jmaynard as well: all of us have more common ground than I believe any of you realize. Of course, there are discussions yet unhad and battles yet unfought, but people need to stay here to fight them. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You will be missed

So please come back. >Radiant< 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed :) I completely identify with your comments at Talk:Daniel Brandt. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration and I'm on the verge myself. Best of luck wether you come back or not, you're one of the good ones. NeoFreak 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hope yer no awa tae bide awa, however whatever's best for you. Orrabest, dave souza, talk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Doc, do you have any interest in helping to write this proposed policy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/Essjay

[1] - please don't be silly. If you want to delete this you may want to talk to Ral315, who moved the discussion to an RFC in the first place. Catchpole 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly. We don't allow uncertified RfCs for a reason, they are attack pages. Not only has there been no certification, there cannot be as there has not been any correspondence with Essjay. We should wait to see how he responds to Jimbo. I see no reason why we should breech our own attack policies on this point. The page must be deleted if uncertified after 48 hours, in any case.--Doc^g 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See my outside view just added to the RfC and the comments I just made on talk. Unfortunately, there is no doubt in my mind that deleting the page will make things, if possible, even worse.

The first sentence of my talkpage comment there expresses very deep feelings. Newyorkbrad 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Doc. For the record, I have quite a bit of empathy for Essjay. This may not be a suitable RFC, although you know perfectly well that the 'certification' is to keep frivolous complaints off. While it may not be an RFC, it's quite certainly the valid commentary of a huge section of the community here. People posted here because this is where the discussion was, not because it was a certified RFC. So, somebody will just move the community discussion to the community noticeboard. If you think that this is just going to vanish into the ether without a protest, you are very sadly mistaken. Sweeping stuff under the carpet never makes things better. Just leave it be and people will forget about it. If you want to keep a continual shit-storm fired up and extend this controversy for days, then you've hit on a fine way to accomplish it. Derex 02:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

incivil language

Your block here may have been justified, but the language you used was inappropriate and unprofessional. As an admin, it's part of your job to behave in a mature fashion and use civil language, even when you're dealing with people who annoy you. If you can't manage that (and I know I sure as heck sometimes can't), no one is forcing you to be an admin. KarlBunker 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very amateur admin I'm afraid (although I'll go professional if someone offers to pay). As such I call it as I see it. Some of us are unprofessional, some of us just plain patronising.--Doc^g 15:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you basically called the guy a nasty motherfucker. We all know what you really wanted to say when you typed "...person" on his talk page. You may want to call 'em as you see 'em, but realize it makes you look just as immature as the person you're insulting - actually, no, it's worse on your part. As an admin you're supposed to try to rise against the natural proclivites that cause regular editors like me to leave those kinds of comments. Otherwise why should you have these powers in the first place? Indiawilliams 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

I've been busy, and ill, and thus stayed away from the various fora wherein I'd notice your absence. I do hope you eventually choose to return to the project; we always need sanity, and your particularly Glaswegian flavour thereof is most appreciated. DS 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war

This case has been closed and the final decision is listed on the above page

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

My contributions to the Roy Oldham Wiki page were deleted. They were cited sources.

WP:SCOWNB Participants merger with WP:SCO

As I hope you may have seen I am attempting to tidy up WP:SCOWNB by removing old notices and the duplication that has emerged since the creation of WP:SCO. One of the latter issues is that there are lists of active Wikipedians on both locations which overlap to a significant degree. As WP:SCOWNB is ideally a place for announcements I am in process of merging the lists at WP:SCO and intend to remove the one at WP:SCOWNB when this is complete. However there are a fair number of Users not on both lists. If you do not wish to have you current WP:SCOWNB entry re-appear at WP:SCO please either let me know or edit the latter as appropriate. Thanks for your patience, and continuing support of matters relating to WikiProject Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PS The above is of course a circular. Please be assured that your resignation is entirely unacceptable, and that I shall keep your name on the WP:SCO list waiting for the happy day when you return.

Quotes of you on IRC channel quotes

Doc, given your recent nomination of meta:IRC channel quotes for deletion, may I assume that you do not want yourself quoted on that page? If you give me an explicit reply here saying "I do not mind," or "No, I do not want what I say quoted there" (or some similar statement), I would appreciate that. A lot of the arguments for keeping were WP:ILIKEIT coloured with a bit of you-can-remove-quotations-of-yourself-that-you-do-not-like. I frankly feel that a lot of users may not know that they are being quoted, so I'm going to start going around asking people who I can identify. Just post here yes or no, and I'll act accordingly. Thank you. --Iamunknown 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the thread below, I have removed that one conversation from the log. But on reflection, I think I shall explicitly deny permission for any other conversations past or present to be logged (I've never previously been asked for permission, anyway). The fact that hastily typed humour in IRC can cause such trouble makes me realise that a) I need to watch what I say in every medium - no excuses there b) as much as public logging might amuse some - it does no good and sometimes considerable harm.--Doc^g 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, and I apologize for the inconvenience; would you consider reposting this message on my talk page? You may then remove it; and if you do not, I will. Then I will provide the diff link to my talk page. The process I've outlined at m:User:Iamunknown/IRC permission/header may offer some more insight. Particularly, I do not want to make it easy for people to harass those who have chosen to disallow logging. Hopefully that would never happen, but I intend to take precautions.

And, finally, I want to express how glad I am to have you back, even if it may be at a reduced level and at reduced spirits. I was worried when I saw the "I quit" statement. I hope that all is well. --Iamunknown 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a repulsive human being

I cannot believe you are an admin. MessedRocker wonders how many Wikipedians have Asperger's syndrome <Doc_glasgow> all of them?. Simply grotesque. You write above "I quit". Well you should. I am shaking with anger. Oh and I suppose this is a personal attack? Damn right it is. David Spart 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does that make you angry? Several of my best friends are officially diagnosed Aspergers, and they're all very nice people, thank you. :-) --Kim Bruning 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This was obviously a jocular remark and intended as such. Doc glasgow is one of the most decent people on Wikipedia. Moreover, the title you have given this thread is far more offensive than anything that Doc might have said. Only the desire to allow Doc to speak for himself if he cares to is stopping me from reverting this thread as an unwarranted gross personal attack.Newyorkbrad 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a misundrstanding. Stay cool! :-) --Kim Bruning 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The remarks were not meant to be offensive - they were ill-judged humour in a private conversation, which was then improperly logged without permission. I was reflecting on the fact that I'd never heard of this condition until I came to wikipedia, and have learned a lot about it since. If they have caused anyone offence, I apologise, none was intended and I regret making those remarks. You chose to call be a 'repulsive human being'? OK, I will not take offence at that attack either.--Doc^g 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a close relative with Asperger's - the remark was daft - I'm sure Doc will never make such a comment again knowing the offense and pain it can cause, but I truly think he made it unaware of the potential offence - he is not a bad person. Aspergers is horrible, it can wreck families and destroy lives and keep parents awake all night. Those that have not lived with it do not understand. It is becoming all too often a "clever" adjective - it should not! Giano 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends. If diagnosed on time, people with aspergers can learn to live a fulfilling life. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They can indeed - but is what any parent would wish for - a fullfilled life by the standards of their doctors? Learn to look people in the eye, smile at Mamma, show her you are happy - it will please her, she will see right through it, but it is better than nothing. The parents worry will such taught gestures please a partner and wife, Oh please just don't go there. Giano 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A fullfilled life by their own standards. I should hope, at least, else my work to help some folks with that in the past year would have been for nothing ^^;; --Kim Bruning 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Last Word

I know, and I, too, feel that a header explaining it as humorous is not exactly necessary. My idea was to produce a common layout in those related essay articles. And I think the header of The Truth I copied over isn't that bad. Just an attempt, didn't want to tread on your toes. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the "attempting to critique certain actions" part in that header. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It really was a reaction to this. I feared that after you were gone, people would keep inserting that awful original humor tag over and over, no matter how clear I make myself (including blocking threats and referring to Jimbo). Some people just need a smiley, which I regard with scorn, but this essay is essentially aimed at those with "limited humour". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The_Last_Word/header. Ok, compromise second round. Just kidding, actually this is it. Won't you please just agree that my new header is superior to all other headers you've come by? Jimbo said so somewhere, I'm sure of it. Or maybe he said something about having a headache. Anyhoo, I wrote my ass off, and would like a little comment from you. Don't be stubborn and please stay WP:CIVIL. Not answering maybe construed as a personal attack. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as has been discussed already on the talk page, satire designed to make a serious point does not need a big purple box. It is categorised as humour and that is sufficient. Loudly saying "this is a joke" in purple adds nothing and detracts from the effect. There really is no need for it other than some silly notions of 'conformity' or some half-baked notion that someone might take the essay at face value. I really can't see what was wrong witht he way it was - and we've discussed this endlessly already.--Doc^g 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Endlessness is defined by the absence of an ending. As I said, my proposal was motivated by the retagging of the article a few days ago. Have you read my new version? It now says: This page is an essay attempting to critique certain actions. It is intended to show a serious opinion about editorial concepts – by means of a style that may or may not be described as "humorous". I like it. But nevermind. Obviously you lack in humour. Or you don't understand the importance of being earnest. No really, nevermind. It was just an idea. Nevermind all the work I put into it. I'm not going to be stubborn about it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The "mother" strategy : Sorry, guys! Just couldn't resist it. I stumbled upon the article, then this talkpage thread; put two and two together and got 7.4. Sorry! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)