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.

If you came here about an admin action of mine: Please make sure to include links and/or diffs to the issue you are inquiring about.

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 February 8, 2007 – March 5, 2007

Come back soon!

Your remarks throughout the Essjay scandal have been consistently worth reading. Always insightful and occasionally funny as well ("if by 'isolated' you mean 2+ years of deception, then you are correct"), you will be missed for the hopefully brief time you are gone. BrianH123 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope to see you here again soon :) Gwen Gale 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I second Gwen's comments. ~ trialsanderrors 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

There is a pending RfC on the administrator that protected Essjay's RfC.[1] --CyclePat 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly

Would you mind taking a pass or two at this article on RegisterFly and let me know what you think needs adjusting? I had asked Hipocrite a week or two ago to look, and he seemed to think it was alright, but he is gone now from Wikipedia... I think I did a good structural job on it (it's a bit complex, with two interweaving lawsuits across four parties, and fairly absurd allegations--see the $6,000 chihuahua) and it's all 101% sourced... but there is really little postive press/news on them unfortunately. I keep looking at it, thinking it might be an attack piece, but I think I may be looking too hard. Seems like a low-notability super successful company that imploded and is getting lots of fame for that, ala Enron (but smaller scale)... please let me know what you think, and make tweaks as needed if you have time or the inclination, or if you can share any advice. This was the most complex thing I've done on here yet--like 99% of the edits are me. thanks! - Denny 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Doug. I just sent you an email to which I would appreciate your speedy attention. Thanks. -- Jreferee 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. : ) -- Jreferee 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A problem editor

jiffypopmetaltop is an unbelievalby biased editor on the Al Gore page. He attempts to intimidate people who have legitimate, well documented contributions by throwing around technical gobbledegook. He continually removes documented contributions with absurd explanations. He wrongfully accuses people of using more than one user identity when Wikipedia has identified him as also using Jasper23 as an alternative identity.

What can we do to control him?

I am also having ongoing problems with this user. I apologize for the "anonymous" posting but I don't want to spend the rest of my days in a retaliatory revert war with someone over solid articles I've authored. Jiffypopmetaltop has a history of drawn out retaliation against users he decides are "against" him. He has deleted, repeatedly and without any consensus, long sections of the Al Gore article that he seems to randomly find annoying, with the thinnest of explanations ("cleaning up the article" "NPOV", bogus claims of wikipedia policy on biographies, claims of prior consensus reached when none has been, etc.). He's been in revert wars with a variety of editors who have shown a stunning amount of restraint in their responses. A consensus reached about the Al Gore article to delete a fork article and include elements of it in the current main article was simply ignored by him. During the debate itself he deleted or changed user comments he disagreed with, something he continues to do. He has repeatedly, and with seemingly no basis in reality, accused editors of using multiple accounts. After the debate he has systematically, over the course of the last couple of weeks, deleted all the sections and article titles he has disagreed with and reverted anyone who has tried to go against him. A cursory glance at his edits will show that many of them are simply for the purpose of baiting other users; humorously enough, this is a behavior he has accused others editing the page of. If I didn't know better I would assume the account was just set up for the sole purpose of trolling.

Well, I'm not thrilled by the anonymity. While these issues may be real, I don't have a "side" in this. There are dispute resolution processes here for dealing with issues such as article ownership, sock puppet use, and abusive editors. All of the above accusations are fairly easily substantiated, although admittedly not without some effort. Show me some diffs, provide some substantiation for your claims and I'll consider helping you. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I'm tired. Every contribution that I and at least a half dozen other users have made to that article has been systematically and insidiously stripped away. Looking back on it, I see that almost not one idea, contribution, consensus or line that we wrote still exists. It's all been a waste of time, and a very disillusioning lesson about Wikipedia. The same sections are being written over and over again, and at the whim and incredible persistence of one user, slowly stripped away again and again. I can't see that any of our work has done any good, and trying to follow a path of non resistance and NPOV on this has been a complete mistake. Frankly, I can't see myself spending additional wasted hours documenting the process for what is at best going to be getting a user blocked when history shows he will simply come up with a new sock puppet and start the whole process again. I think I speak for quite a few contributors who have walked away from that article when I say to hell with, let Jiffypopmetaltop own the article, it's his. If he wants to revert everyone's edits again and again, ignore all contributions except his own, and belittle newbies, more power to him. My apologies for wasting your time. I thought I had the energy to get into this when I saw the other users complain, but stepping back, I realize what a silly waste of time this has all been. I'm truly embarrassed at how I entered this whole process with such naivete and high spirits, I actually thought I was doing something good and contributing to a greater process. I'm leaving it with the grade school feeling that the kid in the back of the class who throws pencils at everyone's head while the teacher turns away is the one who ultimately wins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.133.193 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, I understand completely. I have encountered this before myself. Indeed, it is this reason that I mostly no longer edit political articles. I sympathize, and I wish I could offer you a reasonable and workable solution. These issues can eventually be dealt with, but the process is long and in all honesty, I can't say it is worth the effort. If you would like, I will help, but I too may reach the point of exasperation—and having been through this on another article, my naïveté is somewhat less, so I will likely have less patience. This is ultimately an area in Wikipedia that requires a different solution than the current one. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Only a word, you may not have noticed the article is protected again (though I thought your edit was helpful). Gwen Gale 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was just stopping by to suggest the same thing.Risker 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected edits

Hello Doug Bell, you might want to self revert Essjay controversy as the edit you made was done while the article's protected. Cheers. (→Netscott) 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the protection was related to the image issue. I didn't think my edit was involved in the disputed portion of the article. If you'd rather I make an {{editprotected}} request I will, but if my edit is not related to the reason behind the protection I don't see what the issue with it is. (And no, I didn't notice it was protected until I saved.) —Doug Bell ^talk 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I only wanted to make sure you knew, is all :) Gwen Gale 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing/wanting to modify your edit, but if another editor wanted to who couldn't edit protected articles they'd be out in the lurch, which obviously is not fair. (→Netscott) 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I started editing before the page was protected. I realize that another editor would have been prevented from saving, but I didn't see any point in reverting a presumably undisputed edit after the fact. But like I said, if you want I'll make an {{editprotected}} request just like any other editor would be entitled to do. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is a technicality but I better understand your logic now, thanks for the explanation. It would be good probably to have MediaWiki warn prior to saving to inform someone they are about to make a protected edit which would have probably worked in this case. This is a contentious article and my only desire is to see that it remains unblemished from any appearances of impropiety. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

<remove comments by Netscott unrelated to this issue>

Tellyaddict RfA

Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know....

I'm out of here, probably for good. It's a long story. You could email me. However, I am formally here to request semiprotection for my userpage for a little bit after I'm gone until the vandals and idjits I've pissed off forget about me. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This place just got a little less interesting. :-( I've semi-protected per your request. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that stinks.--MONGO 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

What are you basing this upon? (→Netscott) 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask because I've seen it both ways. (→Netscott) 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just fixing the formatting. When closing XfD discussions, the nominator is assumed to endorse deletion unless they explicitly state otherwise. Adding an explicting delete "vote" is unnessary, particularly since it is decidely not a vote. I didn't do it to upset you, only to remove the redundancy, so please don't take offense. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking offense but I am curious never-the-less as I explained to you I've seen it both ways and I was wondering if there were some guidelines about such things. I admit that what you are saying is outwardly self-evident but I also see advantages to initiating the list of responses. (→Netscott) 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a clear right or wrong here. If you feel strongly about having it one way or the other feel free to change it back. I close a lot of the MfD discussions, and I was just aiming for consistency with how most are listed. As to where this is discussed, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination which states:

Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise. (Some nominations are performed by experienced users on behalf of others, either because they are inexperienced with the AFD process or because the deletion recommendation was the result of a separate discussion.) However, many nominators explicitly indicate their recommendation, to make things clearer and easier for the closer.

—Doug Bell ^talk 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Schwarz

Thanks for straightening that out. I have another issue that concerns me if you do not mind. I see that Barbara has chimed in with an off-topic post to the AfD. Would it be OK if I made a sidebar of it like I did with the COI issues? I don't want to get her all riled up by deleting it and starting some edit war. She came in, she voted once, she posted a comment. I would like it to end there. Thanks. --Justanother 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you are addressing the post. Please do as you see fit. Thanks. --Justanother 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And finally before I toddle off to bed. I worry that Orsini is baiting Schwarz here and here. In the midst of her AfD. Thanks. --Justanother 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had given you a heads-up here on the Schwarz vote and comment to the AfD. Maybe you did not know she was banned. I didn't think about that. --Justanother 08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Schwarz again please

Would you please be so kind as to let us know your opinion on the big pink template at the AfD? I see it as serving no useful purpose and being a distraction. I removed it but Smee restored it. I will abide by your decision. Thanks. And good night (really, this time). --Justanother 03:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a widely used tag to denote WP:CANVASS. It neither encourages "keeps" nor "deletes", simply lets people know exactly what it says: If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. This is most certainly relevant and appropriate. Smee 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

  Honestly though, I really haven't seen a problem with canvassing or with lots of single-purpose participants. I'm not going to make the "ruling", but simply state my opinion that the template doesn't seem necessary at this point. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  My point exactly. Good enough for you, Smee? --Justanother 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for providing your opinion in such a polite manner, Doug Bell. It is not often that individuals of differing opinions on this particular subject can. I will remove the template myself, but if it becomes evident that there is additional canvassing going on, I will put it back later. Smee 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
    • • Really? I thought I have been pretty nice lately. --Justanother 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Good solution. Thanks. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You are most welcome. Smee 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you both. --Justanother 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

11 days

Just thought you should know I've been without arguments on here for 11 days now, which may not seem a lot, but is. Just thoguht I'd share this special moment with you since you're kinda my good twin/admin I look up to person... :) Spawn Man 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas

I've started a deletion review. — Omegatron 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

I just want to try to clear things up between us. I feel that there is animosity. You alluded to me as a POV warrior and singled me out in another post. I believe we have gotten off on the wrong foot, and I'm sorry for that. Is there anything that needs to be cleared up between us?-Andrew c 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so. I actually want to apologize for that last rant of mine on the previous thread (the BBC quote). I overreacted to what you actually said and instead let out some of the frustration I have with the petty arguments I've encountered on the "polictical article" talk pages. You didn't really do anything deserving of that entire rant...I was more responding to where I thought the discussion was going rather than where it had gone yet. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I clearly accept your apologize, and I should apologize as well for focusing more on wikipedia policy than the other reasonings behind your deletion. Thanks for clearing things up!-Andrew c 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Doug,

I noticed you protected Yugoslavia. I am after as neutral a version as possible to burn onto the next version of Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. Can you suggest one before the recent edit warring started? Thanks --BozMo talk 13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I just protected because of a request at WP:RFPP. I don't have any involvement in the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner RfA

Hi Doug. Thank you for dropping by on my RfA. Know that I read every comment carefully and will take care in using my new mop properly. Please don't hesitate to give me praise or criticism anytime. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template Esoteric

Hi Doug, I rather opposed to your suggested 'conditional (logic)' name. Meanwhile the term 'parser functions' is linked to the page about the conditional handlers, and I incorporated it into my suggested 'Intricate' template on Template Talk:Esoteric. Would you mind inspecting the comment I placed there with once more a request to unprotect, and leave a note there; else we're going to get stuck with 'esoteric' forever, I'm afraid. I also think that my suggested term is about the middle ground between 'complex' (initially suggested, by Proto) and your 'conditional logic' at the low end, and AsoToth's concern for some of the more esoteric templates. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 17 Mar2007 04:53 (UTC)

Why delete Super Monkey Ball Portal and Project?

Why delete Super Monkey Ball Portal and Project? I worked very hard on those and your treating it like a piece of trash. Is there a solution to this problem that wouldn't require deleting them? Please answer on my talk page. Thanks. Masky (Talk | contribs) 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just dropping by to see how you're doing :) – Riana ^ঋ 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a little busy in RL, so here less. Nice to see that orange bar without it being somebody complaining about something I deleted.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might appreciate that :) My talk page isn't very nasty, but the e-mails I get - wow, I've learned a few new words, I can tell you that. – Riana ^ঋ 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't do too many blocks...I suspect those get more nasty email than deletions. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for de-categorising all the user pages from, much appreciated, one less task here. I don't s'pose if you happened to notice if any received the category through broken templates did you? Cheers ^Khukri 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I only found one broken template, Template:Replaceable short (which I fixed). BTW, I assume this was a glich and that you didn't intended to revert my user page back several days. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah monster glitch, I hit the + to leave a message as normal. Sry about that. ^Khukri 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't your fault. The servers have been having lots of history glitches lately. Occassionally old pages and/or histories are returned. It's been happening for a week or two. You may notice occassionally that you get a false "You have new messages" banner because of this. I don't know what the status is of trying to fix it. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cas Liber's RfA

I don't appreciate your tact on this RfA by saying that it was me who he "put on track". Cas makes no mention of my name on the page & even if he did, I don't want my name plastered around like that. I have feelings too you know & I'd like you to remove my name from your comment, which you'd do if you cared at all for another person's feelings. Thnaks, Spawn Man 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced my name with another suitable phrase, which keeps my identity private & doesn't remove anything you were trying to say. i hope you don't mind, as I didn't want to wait for you to show up before I could fix the problem. Thanks Doug, & hopefully you'll agree with what I've done? Thanks, Spawn Man 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I guess I didn't reread his statement to see that he had removed your name from his comments. I read an earlier version where he mentioned you, so that's what my comment was based on. Sorry. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

G'day Doug, I was amused at the latest vote - what are the rules in these situations in terms of voting in these circumstances - do they get wiped/ignored? (....oh my poor 100% record....(sob)). Not that I'm really fussed. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats can remove/ignore votes, so I did the next best thing which was to "uncount" it. Unless the bureaucrat recounts it, your 100% record is intact. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RevRagnarok RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material recovery

Hello! Can you recover the deleted article Janicism and send it to me by "email user"? Possibly File:Janicism article.jpg too. I would like to obtain the copy just for reasons of curiosity to the controversy (also a funny controversy one can say). I promise I will not post it anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks! Wooyi 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sent. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've read and viewed the picture. It was certainly fabricated. Wooyi 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual80man Reply

What the fuck was that excuse for? And about you warning me just now, I want proof. Where and what the FUCK did I do? User:Factual80man

edit summary, comment and edit summary, edit summary, comment. In addition, you should save "fuck" and "fucking" for those special occassions when the extra emphasis is really needed, not sprinkle them into every other comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it... okay... I'll then stop... User:Factual80man

Thanks. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently doesn't when to know to stop. He keep's spamming the Survivor Series (2002) article, and when I remove it he says stuff like "Who the fuck cares?" and "stop being ignorant, leave it fucking alone". TJ Spyke 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your specific issue with the link? It might help if instead of simply linking to WP:EL, you explained why you think the link should not be included. Is the issue that the linked video is a copyright violation? I would also point out that you are technically in violation of WP:3RR as of this edit. I would also point out that although Factual80man's incivility in his comments is an issue, labeling good faith edits (and I believe these to be that) as vandalism is also incivil. You have directed Factual80man to the talk page, yet I see no discussion on the talk page from you regarding why you are reverting his edits.

What I'm getting at here is that as far as I can tell, this is a content dispute, not vandalism or spamming. Mislabeling Factual80man's edits as such is not anymore helpful than his language in his edit summaries. Instead of continuing to revert, why don't you initiate the discussion on the talk page? —Doug Bell ^talk 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed with the patience you are showing this user :-) C ^thirty-three 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I told the user a few days ago that if the link goes anywhere, it should go on the Elimination Chamber page since the video is about the EC rather than the PPV. He's continuing to be uncivil, I just had to remove an attack he made on my talk page. TJ Spyke 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> I blocked him for 12 hours for the attack on your talk page and the similar attack on his talk page. Hopefully he will see the error in his ways, but perhaps not. I've tried to be patient with him, but enough is enough. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The link in question is a copyright violation of WWE, and could potentially place Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my question above, but it doesn't seem that until now anyone said this was the reason. Spam and copy vio are not the same thing. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but I wasn't aware of the situation until today. It peaked my curiosity, so I took a look at the link, and yea, it's a bad copyright vio. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Word Association deletions

Why are the subgames of Word Association being deleted? There was no consensus to delete these games. Squad51 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, if you came here about an admin action of mine, please provide links and/or diffs.

I did not close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association, but merely performed the deletions as User:Anthony cfc who closed the discussion is not an admin and thus could not delete the pages—so you might want to ask Anthony about the determination of consensus. However, I agree with his closing of the MfD that the consensus was to keep the main Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association page and delete the rest. The closing wasn't particularly clear regarding the variant games—it said to keep the main page and delete the archives without specifying whether the variant games were to be deleted with the archives. However, the variant games seemed largely indistinguishable from the archives, so I deleted them as well. (I mean, does it really matter if the game is formatted as a table or not?) —Doug Bell ^talk 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WA

I think the general consensus was to delete archived and unplayed games but everything else not agreed on got deleted as well. Why? (Exception of main game, i am not asking why that did not got deleted) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association. Simply south 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Every page deleted had the word "archive" in the title. The closing consensus was to delete the archives. I don't see what the issue is. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As well as the archives, the actual games also got deleted i.e. those which weren't archives. Perhaps it should have been more selective. Simply south 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the current games were on pages named "archive"? That's not a very good system... —Doug Bell ^talk 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see what the issue is. You want to talk to JzG. I listed all the pages on the MfD that I deleted, but JzG deleted many others, including the game pages. I will add that list of deleted pages in a bit. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request a DRV close

Can you close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22#Melissa Scott (pastor)? Both I and Trialsanderrors have opined in the review. GRBerry 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If noone else does it sooner, I'll get to it later today. —Doug Bell ^talk 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the right close for the discussion. GRBerry 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Casliber RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: striking out comment

I felt it was the right thing to do. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, good enough. I just thought that you said what needed to be said in regards to Qxy's manner of "departure". —Doug Bell 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that he got the point and responded appropriately. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chiefsfan364/Pizza

I believe you acted incorrectly in closing this AfD as a Delete, given that there were 8 Delete votes to 6 Keep votes, hardly enough to demonstrate consensus. Also, your flippant closing remark (viz. "eat the pizza and delete the page") indicates to me that you allowed personal feelings about the triviality of this page to supersede the correct application of deletion policy. I am not intending to make an assumption of bad faith, as I completely understand why you feel that this page merited deletion, but I still feel that you acted incorrectly as the closing admin. I am not going to take this to DRV or through any other channel, as it isn't worth it for a single humorous subpage (and I doubt the deletion would be overturned); also, the page's author has not expressed any burning desire for its reinstatement. My issue is not with whether the page should have been deleted, it's with whether you carried out the MfD policy and process correctly in deleting it. I hope you don't take this criticism personally; I'm not trying to attack you, just questioning one of your administrative actions. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the comment I wrote above, I apologise if it comes over as excessively critical or as a personal attack. That wasn't my intention. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were a matter of vote counting, then the count would be 9 delete to 6 keep. Although he didn't register a !vote, I took Daniel Bryant's comments as an opinion favoring deletion, which then makes it 10 to 6. However, it's a matter of arguments, and nobody put forth a convincing argument why this page should be kept as an exception to Wikipedia:User page. Sorry if you didn't appreciate my attempt at humor in my closing remark—that's one of the issues with humor is that sometimes it's just not funny. —Doug Bell 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

...no one put forward a convincing argument why this page should be kept as an exception to Wikipedia:User page. I presume the specific criterion to which you refer is Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page: Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, which, admittedly, this was. (I'm not going to try to argue that the demerits of pizza are related to Wikipedia, except tangentially.) However, my argument was based on the following central points:

• It is generally agreed that more leeway is allowed in userspace than in other namespaces, e.g. WP projectspace.
• WP projectspace includes many pages which are far more pointless than this one, e.g. Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout.
• Ergo, for the sake of consistency, if you're going to delete trivial essays in userspace, then the trivial essays in projectspace ought also to be deleted. This may seem like an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a deletion argument with which I am intimately familiar, but editors ought to at least try to be consistent. If it wasn't for WP:POINT, I would immediately nominate Wikipedia:List of cabals for deletion, just to show you the flood of "Keep, it's funny" votes that would come in, from the same people who voted Delete on Chiefsfan's page.

As for your attempt at humor, there was nothing wrong with it in principle. If there had been a clear consensus to delete, I probably would have laughed. However, several of us voted Keep as a matter of principle. Don't misunderstand me. I agree that the page was pointless. However, it's a matter of precedent; I just don't like the idea of deleting people's user subpages for any reason other than inflammatory or inappropriate content (which this wasn't). As such, I felt I had to fight it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the light of events today, I'm going to have to retract part of what I said above. I noted you voted Delete in the MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test, which means I can't really accuse you of being inconsistent in terms of applying the same rules to userspace and projectspace. Evidently your stance is that humorous miscellany pages which do not have a clear function in relation to WP policy should be deleted; although I don't agree with that opinion, I can respect it. So you can ignore my earlier statements. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon DVD Guide

Hello, I bet you had damn-good reason of deleting this article. But could you do me a favour and remove Pokémon DVDs? I made this redirect to a page that is now removed. Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC) P.s. Please leave a message on my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Message left. —Doug Bell 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand, I mean Pokémon DVDs page, that is a redirect to that dead page. I was trying to ask you to remove the "Pokémon DVDs" page since it's a redirect to this dead page. TheBlazikenMaster 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I understood that. I just didn't know if you were asking because you had a problem with the deletion or not. I've deleted the redirect, thanks. —Doug Bell 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan

I apologies, I confused the process here with the one on commons. -- Cat ^chi? 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru/Sandbox

I started a sandbox and it disappeared. It was a work in progress of an article. There was no MFD for my sandbox. I would like you to open my sandbox because it was deleted against the policies of Wikipedia. I want to get to work. Sandbox is private space. I don't understand. I wrote some information and it is lost now. I wanted to present and propose addtional information for an article. It was soley a work in progress. All my work is gone. Thank you for your help. Sometimes misundrstanding happen. I believe my sandbox was deleted without justification and without a specific MFD for that particular sandbox. Sandboxes are allowed for making edits for experimenting on different styles, organizing, and a workplace. I have a lot of ideas I want to get to work on but I have no place to propose and display a draft. Best Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would You Please do me a favor?

Hi, would you Email me the deleted content for: Pooya Rad ? I gathered some information over there and then it has been deleted because of wiki policies by you. I need them to use in my personal website. Pooyarad 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Icosagame

please provide if possible original article that was deleted apparently 12 Feb 2007 and any thoughts for improvement to merit inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFrank (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

RFA

You are an administrator who spends a lot of time with RFA. I think there is a vandal on my RFA, but don't want to remove his votes. He has supported, and opposed with a neutral statement. Furthermore, my parse failed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Golf Newsletter

The WikiProject Golf Newsletter Issue IV - May 2007 If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.

Project News I am experimenting with a new layout for easy readability, as well as to make the newsletter look more attractive and more like other ones. If someone feels it could be better, go right ahead and change it. The newsletter page is right here. An assessment department has been set up. To find out how to assess an article, go to the assessment page. I have asked Snowolf if his bot could help in tagging articles. The response is still pending, but hopefully we will soon have more of an idea of how many articles we have. During the two months since the last newsletter, Annika Sorenstam has reached good article status. Congratulations to all who worked on this article. There has been a recent peer review for Jack Nicklaus. Please help by following the suggestions that are shown here. A new sidebar has been created. If you think it could be improved, go here. Several new templates have been created. Go to the templates page for a full list. Article Statistics Golf articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA A 1 1 GA 2 2 B 10 1 11 Start 30 3 2 6 1 42 Stub 11 3 11 73 2 100 Assessed 54 6 13 80 3 156 Unassessed 0 0 0 0 1269 1269 Total 54 6 13 80 1272 1425 New Members Welcome to all the new members over the past two months! Golfer45 Crunch Mudforce Alexander Phipps Fuzzy14 AdamKostrich Bones999 Mets Bu b0y2007 Richard B Christophee

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

A priori (law)

Surprised to see this WP:PRODded. What was is transwikied to? It can't be wiktionary -- there's nothing there to explain the legal meaning. Tried to fix the disambig anyway. It's odd the most common usage was prodded while some of those others are still around. I started to use the phrase on a Talk page then realized I wasn't even exactly sure what it meant. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See A priori and a posteriori (philosophy). "Lawyers sometimes use "a priori" to describe a step in an argument the truth of which can be deduced entirely from the truth of the premises. "A posteriori", on the other hand, requires a bit more evidence." In Talmudic law, the term can be used to mean, forbidden before the fact, and the other might be permitted (or forbidden) after the fact. HG 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Toum

Hi there, you had deleted an article toum after it was transwikied to wikibooks/cook, is there a way you can please keep/restore the original article on wikipedia and put only a link to the whichever new location of the article? (I usually check answers/messages on my talk page, please reply there) Thank you Abountu 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Golf Newsletter

The WikiProject Golf Newsletter Issue V - June 2007 If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.
Project News An assessment department has been set up. To find out how to assess an article, go to the assessment page. I have asked Snowolf if his bot could help in tagging articles. This should be starting soon. There has been a recent peer review for Golf. Please help by following the suggestions that are shown here. Several new templates have been created. Go to the templates page for a full list. The Outreach department has been founded. It now holds the newsletters, and soon a welcome message and an invitation message. Member News No new members have joined the project in the past month. Keep on recruiting! Congratulations to all the editors who contributed to the newest Good articles: Byron Nelson	From the Editors Welcome to the 5th issue of the WikiProject Golf newsletter! There are a few new additions that I hope will be up and running soon. A welcome message and an invitation message for prospective members should be ready within two weeks. A collaboration of the fortnight, or collaboration of the month i'm hoping will be ready by the time of next month's newsletter. Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 6 – July 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this issue Grover 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Article Statistics Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Golf articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA A 1 1 GA 3 3 B 9 1 10 Start 32 3 3 10 2 50 Stub 10 4 11 75 4 104 Assessed 55 7 14 86 6 168 Unassessed 0 0 0 0 1282 1282 Total 55 7 14 86 1288 1450
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Redirect of Timeline of trends in music (1800–1899)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Timeline of trends in music (1800–1899), by Spartaz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Timeline of trends in music (1800–1899) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Timeline of trends in music (1800–1899), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Timeline of trends in music (1800–1899) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanished article about J. Scott Smart

Hi Doug. I picked you at random, cause I cannot seem to figure out what to do about my problem. I wrote an article for Wikipedia on the late actor, J. Scott Smart. It has been deleted for some reason and I cannot find out why or how. I searched the deletion logs going back from today to February, and there is no mention of the article. Can't imagine what has happened to it. I am the official biographer of Smart, and wrote the book about his life. He was as much a household name in 1950 as say David Caruso is in our day. He was a major figure in the history of radio drama during the '30s, '40s and '50s. See what I mean? Curious.

Got any suggestions?

My email address is cdlaughlin@hotmail.com

Thanks, Charles D. Laughlin

Hi again. Problem solved. Some administrator arbitrarily decided I could not use material I had published elsewhere and deleted the article without discussion, without attempting to communicate with me, and so far as I can tell, without real understanding of copyright law. Anyhow, I learned what I needed to know; to wit, it is pointless writing for Wikipedia when all one's efforts can be undone by some officious administrator. That means that one would have to monitor one's contributions constantly to make sure it's still there. Absurd. So that's it for me. I'm outa here. Sad, cause the Wikipedia project had great promise.

May I ask you a favor? Is there any way I can retrieve a copy of my article, "J. Scott Smart"? Appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks, Charlie

AfD nomination of Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em

An editor has nominated Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Resurgent insurgent 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi weapon's master Admiral... te he he...

Just saw a piece of vandalism to your article Doug Bell (diff) that had been there for some days. I've warned user, but it was amazing to know you're a professional singer?! ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for interview

Hi, Doug. I'm writing a book on the history of CRPGs for A.K. Peters press, and wondered if you might be willing to answer a few questions about Dungeon Master via email. I plan to spend a good deal of time discussing the game, and having your input would be invaluable. Please let me know if you're willing and able to participate. My email address is mattbarton.exe@gmail.com

Thanks,

Matt

Hi Doug, my name is Paul King and I am the NZ political candidate that is on wikipedia. The article is roughly correct and depends upon your perspective. I would rather leave it incorrect than to be accused of writing my own glowing autobiography. I will add sources as I find them if that helps. I don't know the whole truth about what happened behind the scenes in the election but we now know the current Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, cheated and spent $800,000 over the limit for advertising. This is not me saying this it can be verified by the NZ Auditor-General. It is gut wrenching to lose an election by 0.4%, lose your wife of 12 years, have your business attacked by politically motivated ( I believe ) court action and then find out three years later the opposition cheated and then use their position as the Government to cover their tracks with an "appropriation bill". I will stand again for Parliament when the time is right and therefore I think it may be important for the public to know that I tried, I failed, but I'm still out there preparing for my next attempt. That way when I do succeed history has a record of it from the beginning. I think that it would be convenient for some political groups if all their possible opponents were removed from the public eye and media like wikipedia and that way they would have an easy path to victory. The Freedom Party wasn't able to be formed because we didn't have the required 500 signaturees required by law to form a party in time for the election. Other parties in the past have just fudged this issue and ran anyway. This is not the way I do business and I decided if we couldn't get the required numbers on paper then we would just have to bow out for that election. 1984 wasn't just a novel, it was almost prophesy .. history is rewritten by the government of the day to cover their tracks etc Thank you for reading this. Paul King paul@king.co.nz

Why was "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" deleted?

I've got a snub for it if it could be recreated, it is as follows:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Meaning:

You use this proverb to say it is better to accept something that you have or you can use now than to try to get something better that you might not be able to obtain. Sometimes people just say, "A bird in the hand."

If someone says, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," he/she means that it is better to be satisfied with something you have than to risk losing it by trying to get something better you may not succeed in getting.

Example:

If I were you, I'd accept the job. It might not be the best job for you, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Was going to create it, as I had to do a google search to find an answer instead of my normal wiki-search, but I'm sure there will eventually be someone else who searches for the same thing on wikipedia.