User talk:Doug Bell

Leave a new message.

If you leave a comment on this page, I will respond on this page. I may also respond on your talk page, but in general, I will only respond here.

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006

Howdy

As far as Ward Churchill goes..I think the guys a crack pot. I really think he has repeatedly made false and or insulting comments, but I also think the press has, for the most part, brought these controversial comments to the forefront. I'm sure most of us peons would have never heard of him if it werem't for (especially) his comments about 9/11 and the Little Eichmanns, etc. Regardless, I have zero vested interest in the article but will gladly do all I can to help you and Lulu work out the situation. We have to be careful top not let the notority of some of his comments become the focal point of the bio on the man...this will be no easy task.--MONGO 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I completely agree. I suspect that we will be able to work it out, but I appreciate the offer of support if needed. The comment I left for you was basically defensive in that in my previous exchanges with Lulu, he has a rather unpleasant tendency to immediately start assuming bad faith and then follow that up with "campaigning" against people. Not that I think that has happened yet in this case, but based on my previous experience with him I just want to head off his usual politicing of other users before it does become an issue.

My concern with the latest changes to the Churchill article is that they have taken a step back from what seemed to be a good balance between discussing the various controversies on the main bio page, but not overwhelming the bio page with all the detail surrounding the controversies. While certainly not perfect, the page was a reasonable NPOV balance. I recently helped broker a similar improvement to the Kobe Bryant page. I don't know a lot about Bryant, and as with Churchill, don't have much vested interest in the subject other than trying to see that the article is balanced. The Bryant and Churchill pages are actually similar in several respects:

• they each have a small core of dedicated apologists, who while they have a "pro" POV, can be reasoned with
• each page also has its fair share of drive-by vandals, which seems to make the "pro" people watching over the article a little trigger happy when responding to any non-pro edits
• each subject has been involved in some negative controversies that, while never reaching the point of proof of a final legal proceeding, certainly are credible

These factors seem to require careful mediation to make progress because you have to get the parties to realize that it is a good faith effort to improve the article and convince them to step back a bit from the control they are exerting over the article. I suppose it is a weakness of mine, but it just really irks me to have to deal with these POV-laden responses to any attempt to make changes to the articles, but I try. Lulu in particular has been able to get under my skin because he is often inappropriately condescending in his responses, tends to assume bad faith, and peppers his comments with, often inaccurate, WP:THIS and WP:THAT. I think you can see at least a hint of that in the comment he left on your talk page. Anyway, I'm taking it as a challenge of my mediation skills to wade in and try to improve the article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I posted in the discussion page for Ward Churchill, have a look at the George W Bush article in the section titled "Sustance abuse controversy [1]. I worked hard to ensure that only absolute facts were presented there and the innuendo and rhetoric that was based on a lot of POV and opinions was put in a sub article that can be linked. I am on the fence between you and Lulu's version...but I prefer to keep as much controversial stuff out of the mainpages of Wiki bio articles and relegating such information to subarticles. I am not supporting a whitewashing but trying to find a way to both be informative and concise, but most of all, accurate. Let me know if there is anything I can do.--MONGO 11:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:If defined (and others)

You recently voted "keep" in this deletion debate. Your vote, along with two others (my own included) were discounted on what I believe to be frivilous grounds. There is currently a deletion review ongoing that I would very much appreciate your input on. You can read (and comment) on the review here. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

unthreading?

Just curious... why do you unthread discussion on the Churchill talk page. It makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. I won't change what you just did, of course; but obviously in the future any comments I make (on any talk page), will follow Wikipedia's usual convention of using indentation and interspersing to indicate threads. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean "why did you unthread the discussion"...

By creating multiple threads within a fairly concise comment that was expressing a complete thought, you make the original comment hard to read. As people respond to the responses, it becomes nearly impossible to see what the original comment was, and certainly, it becomes difficult to respond to the comment as a whole because any attempt to do so will necessarily appear to be responding to the original comment plus all the response threads. So I did it to make it EASIER to follow the discussion, and so as not to have my original comment lost in a sea of threads.

As to Wikipedia's usual convention, I have seen both approaches used. As to changing what you did, you have refactored my comments on several occasions, including the present subsection you created from my original comment, so I don't understand your objection to my refactoring to make the discussion easier to follow. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it easy to identify which comment is which if indentation level if preserved. Oh well, YMMV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Indentation level was preserved; I simply consolidated your short thread responses into a single comment to my comment. One of your threaded comments (re: Wikipedia:Summary style) was not even correctly placed as it applies to both the points I was recommending, yet was listed after only the first point.

Overall, I find your style of replying makes it hard to follow the discussion, especially after a couple rounds of responses. This is not how threaded discussions work on message boards nor in email, and for the most part I rather prefer to preserve the original comments and sequence of responses instead of mixing it all together. By breaking up people's comments into threads:

• the original comment becomes obscured,
• the sequence of comments and responses becomes obscured,
• the signature of the original poster gets separated from the individual thread,
• future responses to the original comment by other users are basically limited to responding to the individual threads created by the response instead of responding to the original comment as a whole.

So this may not be the last time I "unthread" your replies to one of my comments. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK on the threading thing. I can see a certain logic in what you find more intuitive, even though I differ. And indeed I do try in talk pages to add subsections when threads become too far indented. Generally that refactoring lets one remove a bunch of indentation levels when what is effectively a new subthread is launched at a deep level. And also, your unthreading was quite meticulous in adding a word or two to establish context, which is exemplary.

I suppose I'm a bit too attached to a precision of formatting that matches my sense of order. When I look at source code, it usually drives me crazy when indentation and spacing is not done "right"... even when it is done consistently according to someone else's idea of "right". At times I cultivate my OCD tendencies, but at other times I need to try to check them. The great see-saw of life :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Break

Sorry Doug...I was just adding a page break to keep that huge discussion section from becoming unmanageable...you can of course delete it, move or or retitle it as you wish.--MONGO 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I refactored it a bit so that it doesn't look like an independent section. Note that my signature from my original post (the one with the bullet points) is now separated from most of the content of the post. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's RfA

Right up there with 72/75/23 = 170! ;-) hydnjo talk 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it ended up that Karmafist missed a tie with BDA by only 2 votes (new list) NoSeptember ^talk 19:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rspeer RfA

My request for adminship ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I hope that I can earn your trust with my future actions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lulu

I'll post this here to keep it off the article page because it involves something aside from article content. I agree that Lulu has strong emotions and I will confess that he and I were almost at each others throats about 6 months ago over content in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit and a look at the discussion page and the archives (if you're bored) will show just how hostile we were with each other. (I would have to say, that it was mostly me being bad...I think Lulu was just provoked by me) Politically, I am a conservative on many issues but not all, and needless to say, Lulu is not conservative on many issues, but I was surprised to find he actually has a few conservative notions. We kind of departed mad from that project but a few months ago eventually came together and I now consider him my friend. I asked him, due to his high educational level to join in on an article that I had started (Glacier retreat) mainly just looking for feedback, but he has contributed enormously there and the article is much better for it. Lulu may be somewhat protective of Churchill's image...but I can't blame him for being so. We have had some serious concerns about bio articles in Wikipedia being filled with absolute nonsense...and this has threatened us with potential lawsuits or at the very least, bad PR. I am not sure how to tell you, but I guess the best thing to do is recognize that the written word can appear really hostile, much more so than it really is intended. My guess is Lulu will see this note (sneaky:) and also chill out. Not sure if this puts anything in perspective, but the best thing to remember is the argument is about content, not each other. (I have to remind myself that every time I log in).--MONGO 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

but the best thing to remember is the argument is about content, not each other – this is exactly what I have been trying so hard to do and would dearly like to do. If you see something in the exchanges between Lulu and I where I failed in my attempt, please tell me. That comment cuts both ways, and I really feel that Lulu has been the one that has made it personal. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug, I'll mention it to him. He has strong viewpoints and that translates into arguments at times...I know I'm hardly one to talk as I spent my first 4 months here arguing about one specific area of the George W Bush article...substance abuse.--MONGO 10:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky me

Not as cuddly as it looks, but it sure does look cute

Or maybe MONGO was calling himself sneaky, since he also put a helpful rejoinder to chill out on my talk page (which you might even have seen too :-)).

Anyway, neither of us is going to be convinced by forensic examination of who is "truly at fault" for our past page conflicts. But I'd like to try to make a peace offering. Both to assure you that what I have at heart is the page quality of an article I latched onto for whatever reason, and to promise you I will try my very best to assume good faith of you, going forward. I know that, at heart, you likewise want to make Wikipedia a better resource. For better or worse, my latching onto Churchill's article is as close to accidental as anything can be; and while I feel protective, it's really exactly the same way I feel about, e.g. the Glacier retreat article MONGO mentions. I'm not anything remotely close to a glaciologist or climatologist, but once I edited a little, I felt increasing investment in making it as good as possible, even a protective sentiment. That's not necessarily good ego, but it's how things go with me (and, I believe, with many editors). Of course, the nature of cooperation and conflict (such as it is), is much different on those scientific, and less politicized topics; but the emotional investment is the same.

I have no idea what moral to draw from this, but I also watched and edited the Bob Dylan article for a while. But ultimately I just took it off my watchlist and let it go. I found the attitudes of one particular editor there simply too rancorous to try to work on it any more. So in the end, I just let it go, and realized it didn't ultimately matter if an article on a popular songwriter is a little bit worse for my non-involvement. As far as "politicization" goes, the Dylan article was oddly worse than the Churchill one. It pops up in odd places. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith

Though I think you went way overboard with the forensic bête noir thing, hopefully it's a done deal. I don't think I should have played along long enough to do the highlighting game, but c'est la vie. Hey... despite my two phrases, I've exhausted my knowledge of French :-).

It is a done deal. If you think I went overboard, just keep in mind that it was the repeated ad hominim attacks on your part that created the bête noire thing. The only way I know to deal with innuendo is to shine a glaring light on it, and I won't hesitate to do it again if needed. (Hopefully you won't find my edit comment for this post insulting, even though I do mention your user name.)

If you want to see some genuinely scandalous and vicious personal attacks, you might take a look at Pokey5945's comments at Ward Churchill#How things should be. Doesn't take much forensics to see how nasty it is. And maybe you'll start to get a sense of why I'm a bit defensive about the article. Or look not too much farther back at some even more disruptive and insulting editors than Pokey5945 (talk page archive, edit history, whatever... or massive vandalism of both the article and my user talk page by the same editors).

Yes, well being defensive doesn't mean you can't be civil.

Btw. Great work with the glacier articles; and I want to commend you again on the nice new ref template you created. I probably wouldn't have thought of doing that, though it doesn't look too hard once I look at the source code.

After you get your feet wet with templates, look at Template:Javadoc:SE that I created.

Here's a little favor I'd ask of you... maybe as a gesture of good faith on your part. How'd you like to cleanup the references on David Mertz to use the various {cite book}, {cite web}, {cite journal} templates? It was a nice exercise doing so for the Churchill article, and I think it looks a lot nicer for the effort. But I've gotten bitten before for editing the article on my, so think the better part of valor is not to do so myself. I confess a modest trepidation here, since clearly I don't want any anti-Mertz POV stuff added. But basically the information for the citation templates is already there... or at most it might require following a couple of the links for complete details on a cite.

I have no problem with that (and absolutely no interest in adding POV stuff to your article, although the temptation to poke fun will be hard to resist :-) I don't promise when I'll get to it, but it will probably be sooner rather than later. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's totally non-urgent, but I just don't want to be the one doing it, for the obvious reasons. I'll poke around at the template you mention, and maybe get a feel for templates. I really haven't played with any WP internals of any sort... templates are the very simplest type of this, but I've been thinking of looking at the Python API tools to maybe write some sort of bots. I reckon you'd use Java instead, but it looks like lots of such APIs are available. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in return you can do whatever verification is needed to get that ugly template off the Doug Bell page. There isn't any claim there that should be difficult at all to verify as I only put the most basic, unadorned information on the page. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties

Regarding your participation in the aforementioned AfD (which resulted in no consensus) I would appreciate your opinions in the following AfD discussions. Thank you for your time. -- Krash (Talk) 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties (second nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay literature
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay art
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay theatre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay films

Churchill

Thanks for the greeting. I edited the Churchill page extensively last fall, after Lulu got Keetowah kicked off. I stepped in to counter Lulu's pro-Churchill bias which was taking over the article at that time. Keetowah was definitely anti-Churchill in POV, but no more than Lulu is pro-Churchill. The annoying thing to me is not so much that Lulu is pro-Churchill. I can deal with anyone with any viewpoint as long as they are honest debaters. What annoys me is Lulu's constant use of ad hominem, his refusal to negotiate in good faith, his refusal to provided substantiation when he is caught out making an error, and his disingenuous charges of POV when he himself is unabashedly pro-Churchill in many of his edits. The other thing that amazes me is that he is astonishingly ignorant about the topic. For example, Lulu doesn't know that Churchil habitually claims to be a member of the Keetowah tribe--even since they made it clear that he is not, Churchill still persists in this. That's only one of many factual errors by Lulu. I only edit articles on topics about which I have a lot of knowledge. How presumptuous it is to edit on a topic that one is not expert in. Still, I think the various Churchill articles are in a reasonably good place today, although the McCarthyism page is filled with nonsensical conspiracy theory, as loony as the treason charges against Churchill. But there seems now way to edit out all the nonsense as long as Lulu is determined to maintain the pro-Churchill journalistic tone instead of trying for a more intellectual and neutral article. I would really like to cut down all the proliferation, and I think that most of the McCarthy page should go.Pokey5945 07:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin

Thanks for your support and comment on my recent RfA. I tend to agree that admins don't have to be horribly involved in policy, but also see that I am less experienced in some of the other namespaces. Anyway, thanks again! --Christopherlin 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Glacier retreat article comments on FAC

Here's my view, and I don't mean this to be insulting. I think your disagreements with Lulu over Ward Churchill have carried over a bit in the Glacier retreat article. He is one of many editors there, and while you have definitely had some very useful comments, I honestly find a few of the items you have brought up to be somewhat nit picky. I may be entirely wrong. Now you have been extensively editing the article over the past few days, so why not just make the edits that you think it needs, rather than listing and relisting those areas you have trouble with on the FAC page...as an active participant now, why not be bold and just edit it? At this point, I am a lot less concerned about it ever being a featured article than I am about it being accurate, so if you see inaccuracies, change them...as an active editor to the page, why spend the time commenting when you can do it...I don't make a good secretary, and I don't agree with all the changes you describe. Lastly, it is a work in progress, and I don't have but so much time to devote to this one article. Many of the points you brought up have been addressed, and I worked on them last night, but not all, so as we have time, we can all edit the article a little each day.--MONGO 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in, since I happened across this. I do not have any impression that any of Doug's edits or comments to the glacier articles have anything to do with the conflicts he and I have had on the Churchill article. I assume that the fact MONGO and I have mentioned the articles as examples for some formal stuff like percentages of URLs is what first got Doug interested, but that's neither here nor there. That said, I think MONGO is kinda right about the little changes: a lot of the stuff you've mentioned, Doug, on the FAC or on Talk:Glacier retreat are probably easier just to fix than to analyze or complain about. I'm sure all of us have made typos, or worded something imperfectly, but we are all more than happy to have you just make those fixes. Obviously, broader organizational issues might need discussion, but only some of your comments are in the bucket.... of course, you also have made lots of those little fixes to the article, so this is no particular complaint by me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by this post. I'm going to just assume this is an example of written communication being subject to misinterpretation.

First, let me be clear: my edits on Glacial retreat have been done in the sincerest interpretation of good faith. Let me go even further to tell you that part of my motivation for helping with the article was to return a favor in appreciation for your assistence mediating the disagreements I had with Lulu. There simply could not have been any purer attempt to edit in good faith—I am trying to help this article achieve featured article status. However, now I am just confused and wondering "why bother?"

If you look at my last round of edits to the article, you'll see that I fixed many issues. I spent quite a while editing it and writing those comments. However, as one who has not done any of the research, and one who does not know the history of the article or who the participants (other than you and Lulu) are, there are many changes I'm not comfortable making. These issues I recorded in the notes that I posted regarding the article. I actually recorded all of the notes in the Glacial retreat talk page, but before saving decided that because of several references to my previous comments, that I should add the comments to the FAC page instead. This, I can only assume, is what has led to your comment here. If somehow I have erred in my judgement, then I apologize, but if you think that this is some sort of bad faith on my part, then I can only shake my head in wonder.

As far as "rather than listing and relisting," in your comments about the refactoring you said that you had addressed all of the issues. So having only that as feedback, I had to assume the previous things I'd noted that were unaddressed in the article were either because you had missed them (what I thought likely given the scope of the refactoring) or because you didn't think they were issues (what I thought possible). I relisted them not knowing which it was. If they had been missed, then relisting them allowed them to be addressed; if they had been determined not an issue, then relisting would provide an opportunity to discuss them. Apparently you would have preferred me to handle this by just making the changes to the article, but see my comment above. Certainly if the decision not to include them had been a conscious decision, I did not want to get into any type of edit dispute and would rather have a discussion first.

As to being nit picky, ABSOLUTELY YES! I thought that's what becoming a featured article was all about—attention to detail and trying to make it an example of the best work possible. Excuse me for trying too hard. I'm really beginning to wonder if Wikipedia is worth all the grief.

– Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay Doug...I just wanted clarification as you didn't show up until after you and Lulu had some entanglements...don't think for one minute that I have found your contributions to be anything other than excellent to the glacier retreat article. I'm a bold editor so I usually keep my discussions to points that fall below my boldness threshold...in other words, comments about sentence structure or minor wording are well below that threshold...hence the perhaps snide (unintentional) comment that I found things to be nit picky. By all means, if a sentence strucure or a reference is off, then change it...I can always revert you!!! Just joking of course.--MONGO 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side note, and again, not to be rude, but I didn't address every one of your comments because I didn't agree with them...I did address a large number of your comments and made substantive changes and I thank you for that.--MONGO 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I'm sorry man. Don't wikibreak because of me...I'm well known as a jerk at times, so get a good night's sleep and I'll work on more of your points overnight...have a look tomorrow at them and let us know what you think. Later.--MONGO 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are some of your points that I have yet to address, but if you could take a look at the article now and let me know how it stands in your opinion, I'd appreciate it. I'll be carefully examining the details you and others have made on the comment pages to ensure each point is addressed and I will work on that tonight. Thanks again.--MONGO 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what more I can do to help the article. As I've pointed out, I've only participated in the role of reviewer and copy editor—I haven't made a single semantic edit to the article. I've picked all the nits I could identify...you may make whatever use of the comments I've left that you want. I'm sure the article is in fine hands and it's probably better at this point to leave it to people familiar with the subject matter and comfortable with being bold. I don't want to be a distraction by causing time that could be spent editing the article to be spent replying to comments, and I apologize if my past comments have created noise on the FAC page. I think I'll spend my time here attending to some other areas of interest where hopefully I can be more useful. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means either. If you look at the comments you made, and compare them to adjustments made in the article, you'll see that virtually every one of your suggestions has been implemented. There may be a few I didn't either because I didn't know how to reword it or I simply removed the objectionable passage from the article space. The article needs to be understandbale to laypaople, not just those familiar with the subject matter. I was merely asking a question and in no way did I mean to insult or to actually suggest that your contributions had other motivations. Happy editing.--MONGO 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not mad; I'm not insulted; I am somewhat deflated by your comments, but I understand that my reaction to them is probably not what you had intended. I'm glad if my comments have been useful, as that was the sole purpose in making them. I'm not sure I can reconcile your statements "I think your disagreements with Lulu over Ward Churchill have carried over a bit in the Glacier retreat article" and "in no way did I mean to...actually suggest that your contributions had other motivations," but that is really neither here nor there at this point. I'm not skulking away, it's mostly just that I really don't know what more I can do other than what I have been doing and how I have been doing it. I'll admit that there is a part of my walking away from the article caused by the enjoyment I was getting out of the collegial editing environment being sucked out of the process, but at this point, I would simply be doing more of the same—making grammar, punctuation and wording fixes, and generating comments on where I think the semantic content needs to be adjusted. However, since I'm assuming there haven't been that many new additions (I could be wrong here since I haven't looked at the article since your initial comment in this thread), there wouldn't be much new content for me to comment on, and thus it gets back to the fact that I really don't know what more I can do to help the article.

I appreciate your comments here asking me to look at the changes to the article—and perhaps here I'm guilty of assuming the wrong motivation—but given your previous comments here I figured it was more as a gesture to smooth over this issue than a real desire for more input from me. If I've gotten this wrong, I apologize. I do consider the issue smoothed over, although I'm still somewhat saddened by it. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted for you to examine and see that the vast majority of your comments made to the FAC process have been addressed in the article itself. I don't think there is much more to say on the matter. I was talking to a collegue and he reminded me that face to face is the best form of communication and that the written word is probably the worst. With that said, and again, I recognize I was wrong to say it, but I just wanted to be clear about the comments...I simply didn't know...and if that makes me an idiot, then I can accept that. Thanks again.--MONGO 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To demonstrate that there are no hard feelings, I copy edited and reviewed the latest article, although with somewhat less enthusiasm. I left the comments on the talk page, hopefully this is acceptable. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (Strike previous statement that's not helpful to mending this. 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Thanks

Actually, this user thinks it is quite ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox, since this user opposed the RFA on the basis of Cyde's involvement in the userbox war.

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redirect to subsection

No, and for the time being, it's not going to happen. However, there is an open feature request, and one feasible method has been proposed. Just a question of whether or not our release manager likes it enough. Rob Church (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:SigmundFreud2.jpg

Please refrain from removing categories from images in the future without asking about this policy. We over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience are rather meticulous (anal) about keeping track of all neuroscience-related materials, as images are often used repeatedly in new articles. Please read [[Meta:Help:Image_page#Categorizing_images]] for more information on Wikipedia policy on image categorization. Thanks. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, well, it was the only image in most of those categories, so you may be being meticulous, but it doesn't appear as if you are being comprehensive—and I thought that was part of being anal. Why not create a category, or better yet, a list in the WikiProject for keeping track of these instead of including single images in categories? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Drafts

I noticed that you tagged an article for deletion, saying "This draft should not be in the article space." I just wanted to let you know that drafts are welcome in the article space. You can read about it as one of the "allowed uses" at Wikipedia:Subpages. Thanks for working to make the Wikipedia better! -- Reinyday, 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing that out. However, the page should still be deleted for the other reason noted: it appears to be an old version of the current article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

cGML

Hi Doug. Per this earlier edit, I also reverted the suggestion to merge CGML into Geography Markup Language. I am not an expert on the topic, though, so feel free to explain your proposal on Talk:Geography Markup Language. I also reverted the strange self-referential merge proposal you added (where you suggested that Geography Markup Language merge with itself). FYI, you also changed section headers to a non-standard format. The standard seems to be not to surround the section headers with spaces. The Rod (☎ Smith) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The self-referential merge proposal was a cut-and-paste error. I intended for it to be a mergefrom GML Application Schemas, which is where the original mergeto proposal for Cgml was directed. The reason (which I will add to the talk pages) for the proposal is the stub nature of the Cgml and GML Application Schemas articles. As far as I can tell, both these articles would be better discussed within the context of the Geography Markup Language article.

As to the section headers, there is no standard (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Spaces), but if I wanted to argue that there was a preferred format, I would point out that the only way the Wiki software generates these is when you click on the "+" link in a talk page, in which case it includes the spaces. Also, the bots that fixed the "See Also" and "External Links" section headings (to change to "See also" and "External links") included the spaces. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Shorthair rejected the previous suggestion to merge Cgml into Geography Markup Language with the comment Remove reference to CGML - more relevant to GML App Schema - but more info needed, so perhaps discussion on a talk page is in order. Regardless, thanks for the section heading space update. I never noticed the automatic spaces from the talk "+" feature and had not previously seen Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Spaces. Now that I have, I will stop imitating the section heading space changes I have seen other editors make. Cheers! The Rod (☎ Smith) 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Candice Forword

Hi Doug! I saw that you put Candice Forword on {{prod}}. International sportspeople do tend to have a lot of support as notable simply through international competition; however, this particular hockey player does seem to approach the bottom edges of that criterion. Therefore, I've put it on AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Forword. Please do comment there. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 05:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Thanks. Nightscream 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Name changes

Just to reassure you, I promise I will not rename your renamed pages for at least... oh, let's say four days. And I won't do so at all if I don't get at least a couple other editors to state that they think something else would be better. Your names are completely NPOV, and I have no issue in that regard. And losing the parentheses is a good thing; I probably didn't make the best choice in using those initially. My only concern is purely stylistic in that the names are somewhat odd word jumbles rather than natural reading noun phrases. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Box-header

I noticed you were tweaking the line spacing on some portals. There have been some changes to Portal:Box-header, which I believe are causing the problem on most portals. I'm working on figuring out why this is happening and fixing it. Thanks for your diligence on adjusting the spacing. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is fixed now on all portals. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I was beginning to suspect that's where the problem was myself. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar

I'm sadly not a native English speaking person, so I have had some troubles separating the grammar of English, Swedish, Spanish and Russian. _→AzaToth 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that, so I figured you'd be OK with me correcting it. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda's RFA

Howdy! You mentioned in your neutral vote that you wanted to see the answers to NSLE's questions in Jaranda's RFA. You may be interested to know that Jaranda has now answered these questions. Happy editing! Where ^(talk) 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Redvers RfA thanks!

Hi Doug! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Here's to my next 60 articles! Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Makemi RfA

File:Stick insect02.jpg

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 05:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

borderline portals

I see you've listed Portal:New Zealand under Borderline portals at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Mostly_done.2C_some_portals_were_borderline. I'm afraid I don't understand why. There are no empty sections in this portal, unless you are referring to sections that you might expect to see in a portal which aren't in this one. There are no redlinks other than in the "Things you can do" section, which lists article requests.

If you can explain how the New Zealand portal falls short of your expectations, I'll see what I can do to improve it.-gadfium 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "Borderline", it just had an empty section (New Zealand Topics). Sorry if the way it was listed was confusing. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Does the New Zealand Topics section appear empty to you? It should be filled with a couple of dozen links organised into 8 areas. If you press the edit button on that section, or go to Portal:New Zealand/Topics, does it still appear empty?-gadfium 04:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I click edit it sure doesn't look empty. If I remove bground="transparent" then it shows up. I'm leaving that part out for now. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The section started off as a copy of the equivalent section at Portal:Australia. Do you have the same problem there? What browser / OS combination do you use, if you don't mind my asking? I have no trouble seeing the Australian topics with IE6, Opera 8.51 or Firefox 1.5.0.1 on XP, or Firefox 1.0.7 or Konqueror 3.5.1 on Linux (amd64 Kubuntu 5.10 with kde 3.5.1), and while I haven't used all those browsers to view the NZ topics prior to your change, I've certainly seen it in both versions of Firefox without a problem.-gadfium 05:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm using IE6 on XP, and Australia looks fine even though the formatting looks the same. Go figure. That's why I prefer programming to HTML design—too many inconsistent browser issues. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm no longer a programmer! Would you mind removing P:NZ from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Mostly_done.2C_some_portals_were_borderline now that this is cleared up? -gadfium 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

AzaToth RfA

Oops that was my error: the clocks went forward in the UK last night and I forgot that. I'll check with the other bureaucrats at the B'crat noticeboard on what to do next. -- Francs2000 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The enquiry has been made here as I'm about to go to bed. -- Francs2000 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

PS it took a while for my sleep-deprived brain to work this one out but the consensus at closure on the RfA was only 62%. Your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay was that (at the time) 52 support against 20 oppose was 72%: this is in fact only 61% consensus. That's not that close to the 75% consensus and to achieve such would have taken an extra 26 support votes, which in half an hour is very unlikely. I'm willing to admit to having made an error but is doing anything more about it at this juncture really going to achieve much? -- Francs2000 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you count, but 54/74 * 100 = 73%; _→AzaToth 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my error. I'm going to bed now. Replies have been posted to the bureaucrats' noticeboard: please refer there. -- Francs2000 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point out, that at the current vote totals when closed, it would only take one oppose changing to support (which had already happened once on this RfA) and one additional support vote to cross that magic 75% threshold. I think, particularly given the entire discussion, that that was not perhaps so impossibly unlikely. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up, Doug. This was truly a poor showing by the 'crat. I posted my comment on the Noticboard's discussion. Even if just one of the guys that based their oppose vote on misconceptions and then didn't bother to respond gets discounted, this thing should go through even if one only goes by the numbers and doesn't take the arguments and quality of the arguments into consideration. ...and then there is of course the oppose vote by Masseejevo (forgive me if I misspell, but I sure hope he doesn't live in a glasshouse the way he throws rocks around). With the qualitative aspects taken into account, it should have gone through no matter what! --Mmounties (Talk) 03:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the Masssiveego discussions in a number of places, but there wasn't a clear cut consensus to disregard his votes, although there were quite a few people expressing concern with the voting pattern. Because of this, I didn't base my arguments on his vote, but I think your point is quite valid. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't bring him up on the noticeboard either. Just that if they look at the discussion and take just the two that were clearly proven to be based on misconceptions, this thing should pass. I have no idea of what is supposed to happen now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Bureaucrat

You are not the first, nor will you be the last, person to feel that a Wikipedian was unjustly promoted or denied adminship. You have not the experience here to dictate how policy is carried out and you are presumptuous to place rules on a policy page. This is vandalism. I think you should calm down about the AzaToth nomination. -- Cecropia 10:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be joking calling this edit vandalism. That is an extreme lack of assuming good faith, especially since this edit was to assist a new bureaucrat who had just made the error this is intended to prevent. Further, when you reverted, you also reverted some punctuation corrections I made in addition to simply including the formula for calculating the percentages that were already part of the policy page. That you call this "dictating how policy is carried out" is what is presumptuous—I did not add any rules to the page or in any way change the policy. All I did was help to clarify what was already said, without adding any of my own interpretation of the rules. Even if you disagree with including the formula (which frankly, I don't understand) reverting the punctuation corrections at the same time shows poor form on your part.

Further, can you please point out where I have not been calm? My comments have been calm and legitimate concerns about the process that was followed.

I find your behavior here to be unbecoming of someone who most certainly does have the experience to understand how policy is carried out here. By labeling a legitimate edit as vandalism, you are making an accusation that you could then use as a reason to block me, simply because I am engaged in a discussion in which my view is counter to yours. This to me smells of intimidation and I rather think you owe me an apology. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I must side with Doug here, Cecropia: You show a lack of judgement in this case, there was non, what so ever faulty edit by Doug in that edit. _→AzaToth 10:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug, I don't want you to be upset or angry, but when your non-acceptance of a legitimate result in an RfA escalates the point where you begin editing a policy page in a didacticly insulting manner, you are going a little too far. By comment to you above was an effort to inform you that it is time to back off a bit. RfA is a process that has run smoothly, but one in which I (especially as the most active bcrat) am constantly faced with a handful of individuals questioning its legitimacy. This is usually followed up by calls to "reform" the process, which typically go nowhere; and important in this is an understanding of why a decision was made. In the case of AzaToth, if there was an error in a user not receiving adminship, it lay with the voters. AzaToth's result was at the level where it would have been a serious error for Francs2000 to have promoted him, because then it would have become a precedent. Actually, I agree with you that we are too into numbers. If you look at the archives of RfA I have been saying this for two years; but humans are, unfortunately, bean-counting animals, and they dependably look to the numbers first in deciding whether a result they dislike was fair. This is something the bcrats (and editors) must live with. I will reiterate my point about calming down about AzaToth. This is not a death sentence we're talking about; he can come back in only a month and run again, bolstered by being able to see what the opposers objected to and, based on history, he has a high chance of succeeding. -- Cecropia 16:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I was not unaccepting of the fact that the result of the RfA was going to stand. That wasn't the point of the discussion. I'm sorry if you've been there and done that and this is all rather boorish of me and others to want to talk about the process. I can empathize that being a bureaucrat must be incredibly tedious with all these people around that lack your perspective on the issue, yet still feel impassioned enough to try and participate in pointless exercises.

I'm fine with everything else you say except "editing a policy page in a didacticly insulting manner". There was a repeated error in stating what the result was by one of the bureaucrats involved in promoting RfAs, so to say that clarifying the issue on the policy page amounts to no more than trying to make a point is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. I went to the page to try and understand the issue, and it was not explained well, so I edited the page to improve it. In editing the page, I was careful to use neutral wording and not to introduce any new meaning into the policy. I do regret I was not as careful with my edit summary as the wording of the summary should have been more neutral. You don't have to agree with my changes, but assuming bad faith and accusing me of vandalism was an error on your part—you are simply mistaken. I still think you owe me an apology for the comment here and the assumption of bad faith, but I accept that I'm unlikely to get one since you apparently see no fault in your actions, only in mine.

I don't see where it's going to get anywhere to debate this back and forth and I've already broken off from the discussion elsewhere because it had little hope in my mind of ever producing anything fruitful. My entire purpose in engaging in this was in the hope of producing something fruitful, even if that was only clarity. I was apparently very mistaken on how the process works. I had assumed that the bureaucrat could look at the votes, look at the discussion, determine if there were legitimate reasons either for promotion or to not promote, and based on that make a decision. Upon learning that this was not how the process worked, that indeed there were nearly inviolable, hard thresholds based on numbers, then perhaps you can understand my concern at that point that while the numbers themselves were given the weight of law, the calculation of the results was not spelled out and was being misapplied. At this point the story forks. In your version, flush with emotion of the battle I rushed off to vandalize a policy page. In my version, confused over my understanding of the policy, I rushed off to try to educate myself on the issue, and finding the policy ambiguous, tried to improve it. There's not much more I can say to convince you that I was not editing in bad faith, or even that I had no intent in editing the page when I went there...so be it.

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought you were editing in bad faith, but you were incorrect in your criticisms. Francs admitted his mathematical error, yet you continued to harp on it. I really think you should apologize to him. I would point out that you appear to extend your error just above by stating "[t]here was a repeated error in stating what the result was [...]" Not so. There was a math error that the bcrat apologized for. The result (non-promotion) was not an error. -- Cecropia 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept the backhanded apology—I'm sorry, but accusing me of vandalism doesn't leave a lot of room to interpret it any way except as an assumption of bad faith. Using weasel words to somehow imply that I simply misinterpreted your remark diminishes the sincerity of your apology. As to the repeated error, I am referring to these two calculations. The fact he did it twice with two sets of numbers made me fairly certain he was using the wrong formula, not just getting the wrong results. Francs2000 may well be owed an apology, but I object to you saying that I was harping on it. Prior to it becoming the central issue related to your accusation of vandalism on my part, I mentioned the error a grand total of one time. Every reference to it following that was in defense of my edit to the project page.

I regret that Francs2000, who I believe was guilty only of being somewhat careless with no malevolence, has had his small, but not irrelevant, mistakes magnified and scrutinized so. Even more so, I regret that AzaToth, who has not participated in or encouraged any of this, has had his name dragged through this mess. For my part in being passionate about supporting AzaToth and about understanding the process by which Francs2000 closed his admin candidacy, I apologize to both of them for the collateral damage they've incurred. HOWEVER, if you review my participation in this process up until the fateful edit summary, I believe you will see that I was indeed calm and restrained, and therefore the ONLY thing that all of your various statements regarding my bad faith can be based upon is a single, poorly considered edit summary on my part. In contrast, I believe that your statements and continued statements regarding my actions and behavior represent FAR greater bad faith than anything I have done. A BIG difference here is that you get to back up your claims with a threat to block me, while I have to be ever so careful now that you've warned me. So I accept your apology, such as it is. I don't find it to be completely satisfactory, but it's a big step forward.

One more thing, since I don't intend to respond elsewhere, my use of the word "bogus" in describing the edits to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats was not an attempt to "write policy". That word is used in that same section to describe (along with sock puppets) the types of votes that are not counted. I was not making policy, and in fact included the statement about bogus votes (assuming that included sockpuppetry) specifically so that my statement would not be interpreted differently than the existing prose. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I said what I meant to say; I saw no imperative to "apologize" at all. But I would rather you had not "accepted" my "backhanded" apology, "such as it is." Merriam-Webster says: "backhanded: "1 : INDIRECT, DEVIOUS; especially : SARCASTIC <a backhanded compliment>" You can readily interpret others' comments in the most negative way, but your frankly insulting entry at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is simply "ill considered." You compound your lack of gracious spirit by accusing me of using weasel words. Yet you "accept" my weasel-worded bandhanded apology. -- Cecropia 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology as a gesture of good faith. I don't, however, find it to be apologizing for anything except a possible misinterpretation on my part. As you said, you saw no imperative to apologize at all, and consistent with that, you used the word apology without the concept of apology. So again, I accept your gesture of good faith. My ill-considered comment was in reference to the edit summary, not to my completely neutral edit to the page. Regarding your statement, "You can readily interpret others' comments in the most negative way," my graciousness is admittedly lacking at the moment as I found your additional accusations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA to go along with the vandalism claim to be an awful lot to attribute to a single errant edit summary, and one I might point out that was not personalized as your comments about me have been. Since I see no mention of these additional statements about me in your "apology", I do find I'm not able to summon the gracious spirit that I would otherwise demonstrate, at least not today. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • DING DING...in this corner weighing in at 85 Kilos, we have Cecropia. In this corner weighing in at 84 Kilos we have Bell. DING DING...Round 1. Ok guys, knock it off. As I've said elsewhere, there's plenty of heat to go around and both of you are just making it worse now, not better. Enough already. Both of you should drop it and move on. --Durin 22:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I will, and now I have. Thank you Durin for your wise advice. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have any reason to not respect you, and I've past reason to respect Cecropia. Given that, it pains me to see two well intentioned people getting into a bout with each other. Both of you have the interests of the project at heart. I hope you both move forward from this. --Durin 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand. This is far from the experience I was looking for myself. I can debate a contentious issue days on end without assuming bad faith or resorting to mud slinging. I can withstand insults, trolls, and other nuisances. But the one thing that I find nearly impossible to turn away from is an unwarranted assult on my character, especially when backed by the reputation of a respected figure of the community, and that's what Cecropia's comments on my actions amounted to. However, I can bury the hatchet, and in fact am absolutely terrible at holding a grudge as long as I can get some resolution. I feel that at this point my grievances regarding the accusation of vandalism have been given a fair airing, and for your significant part in mediating this and providing a calm, reasoned and neutral appraisal of the events, I am extremely grateful. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Durin, for helping put a lid on what amounted to a tempest in a teapot, but this is one of the risks of posting on the internet, where heat easily replaces simple reserve. And thank also, Doug, I saw what you posted on Francs2000's talk page, and it was both appropriate and nice, considering he didn't ask for it. -- Cecropia 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent debate at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Doug, I know you're not reading the page anymore, but if I could get you to read it again I think it might perhaps encourage you. I posted a long response there just now to Cecropia's comments and actions. I am not encouraging you to continue this debate, but I would like to encourage you to just let it lie. The resolution of AzaToth's RfA will not change; it did fail, even if it did close 35 minutes early (I checked, it's 35...posted at :57, closed at :22). AzaToth can and should reapply in another month or so. I'd like to separate that RfA from the debate on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats, which hinges on behavior surrounding the RfA, not the RfA itself. They're two separate topics.

With regards to the debate, I believe there's plenty enough heat to go around. You may feel very justified in the edits that you've made, and don't feel that you've been out of line. But, please consider that your edits are being read by other people who are not inside your brain, looking with your eyes. Text based communications have serious limitations. There's no body language, no voice inflections, and in fact very little to go on to understand the intent of what someone is writing. I could be yelling at you at the top of my lungs right now or wispering so quietly a cat couldn't hear me. You don't know. The people who read your text likewise lack fundamental impression varying information on the manner in which to interpret your text. Isolating "math-impaired", I think you can see that is insulting, even if someone tries very hard to assume good faith. There's room to interpret that in a very negative way and still assume good faith.

Certainly Cecropia has acted out of line. For him to look down upon you because you've been here for three months is to say the least condescending, and that's taking it in a good light. As I've noted on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats, the most experienced editor here has no more standing than the editor making their very first edit. Even if the person is a member of the Board of Trustees of Wikipedia, a member of ArbCom, and a developer, they are still first and foremost an editor. If there is any stratification of people based on what they do, then editor is by far the highest praise we can heap on anyone. You have done that in spades, as you've noted with your thousands of edits without having done RC patrol. Any particular 'title' in Wikipedia isn't a title; it's just a set of responsibilities for additional duties. Admins, b-cats, arbcom members...any of such people are not any more or less important to the project than YOU are. Please, do NOT be intimidated by anyone here.

I have told Cecropia on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats that if he blocks you for making well intentioned edits to WP:BCRAT, then he'd better block me too because I have made well intentioned edits to it as well ([2] for one example). If ever you feel intimidated by someone with a 'title' here, let me know. I'll be happy to review the situation and give you feedback as impartially as I can. You are very welcome here. Don't let one user with a 'title' sour that for you. Remember that in any sufficiently large group there is guaranteed to be one or more people with whom you can not get along. The trick is to do your best to avoid interacting with that person. I think you found such a person in Cecropia, for you.

There's considerable rhetoric on both sides of this debate. I recommend just letting it die down. All the best, --Durin 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to be intimidated Doug. A bureaucrat is a functionary with a few select extra tasks to do, not another layer of administration or authority. (a page of some thoughts on the topic) NoSeptember ^talk 17:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue of status. I can think of at least one long-term bureaucrat who has simply responded to criticisms of his actions by saying that bureaucrats are elected to make decisions, and he did. But I don't. The contrast of Doug's time and mine here is a contrast of not only of direct knowledge of a process, but also the time to absorb the formation of this process, and the reasons for it. I think you are going a bit far afield, Durin, to be talking of intimidation. I did not block Doug, but appropriately warned him that his actions could lead to a block. If I did not inform him, I could not block him (except for multiple active vandalism) without notifying him first. Please let me know where I have actually intimidated anyone or (in view of my position) denied anyone promotion as a result of their criticizing me. -- Cecropia 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Cecropia, you're still making a fundamental attribution error. You're warning him of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL, and calling an edit of his vandalism because of *one* edit summary. Yet, you're not shifting into his chair and seeing things from his perspective that your actions could certainly be construed as being overtly hostile. Instead, what you are doing is, from your perspective, fair and just. The dichotomy of the two should be enough to highlight the fundamental attribution error. I'm sorry, I can't be more clear than that, try as I might. He made one edit that could be construed as negative, because of two words in that edit summary. You clearly have intimidated him. I have made no suggestion that you denied anyone promotion; straw-man. I am speaking specifically of Mr. Bell and your reactions to his edits.
• BOTH sides of this have made errors. I rose to Mr. Bell's defense not because I think he is all-right and you are all-wrong, but because it's clear there's plenty of heat to go around. You did entreat with him condescendingly when you said "Bell thinks that he needs to take bcrats to the woodshed after not quite three months here". That phrase is at least as inflammatory as "add formula for calculating percentage to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right)". --Durin 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That recent debacle

Hi Doug. I bear no ill will against anyone for very long, and I don't tend to bear grudges. One of your comments on my talk page did hurt a bit, though as I was on my way out of the door at the time, so to speak, I didn't pay much attention to it.

You'll see me go on wikibreak often because I work in local government: at times I'm just too busy to visit often and edit stuff, at others it's the stress of real life that's getting to me, not the stress of doing stuff on here. I'll return to RfA at some point, just not yet. -- Francs2000 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doug, you may notice or hear gossip that I have decided to revoke my bureaucrat responsibilities on English Wikipedia. I would just like you to know that it has nothing to do with you or anything you have said. -- Francs2000 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

It would be great if you could check out and comment on the proposal for clearer language in the process description for RfAs that I posted there. Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I hope you'll forgive me for not commenting on the talk page, but I think it best for now if I stay out of any discussion on making changes to the existing policy. I've already been reprimanded once for "vandalising" the page, so my participation there might just be a distraction to you effort to clarify the policy. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got every reason to feel that way. I appreciate you took a look and help in refining it. :) --Mmounties (Talk) 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Doug

I renominated Glacier retreat and your thoughts are, as always, welcome...I even discussed you in the nomination as you deserve an important piece of credit...please comment here :[3]--MONGO 11:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think every single detail you mentioned was a good one. When an article is this big and only a few folks work on it, it is hard to get all the parts combined to make a whole. We always need outside views to get it all together. I never see an article as completed...ever. But I can see a point at which we can say that it is pretty darn good. I even see a few spots that the wording may be improved, but this may just be personal preference. Don't for a minute think that I haven't been appreciative of all your inquiries.--MONGO 08:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure I'm getting the nuances in your comment correct here (I seem to score low on this aspect), but I'm not trying to convey even a whiff of lingering discontent with any of my comments. My references to "nits" is because I do happen to be good at spotting them; it's not meant to be self-effacing as I consider this a good thing. I'm glad to have been able to participate, even peripherally as I did, on what will soon be the latest Featured Article. Congrats for the accomplishment—you put a lot of hard work into this and it shows. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no...don't misunderstand me. I do not think the article would have had anywhere near as good a chance of becoming a featured one without your "nits"..they were all excellent. Don't forget that. I draw your attention as well to my comment that you templated the new harv style which superscripts the harvard text...I think that this eliminates the need for the original style and makes for a lot less inserting those silly </> things all over the place. You, Lulu, Peltoms, Wseigmund and myself are the major contributors to the article. If it passes, you would have as much right as anyone of this group to notate on your userpage that you were involved in writing this article. Shoshone National Forest was mostly my work, but I definitely didn't do it alone and some excellent changes were made by others in the week it was at FAC. In a nutshell, it would be hard to do a lot more than you did on any article that becomes featured due to the collaborative nature of this project. Just because I happened to start both Shoshone and Retreat of glaciers since 1850, really doesn't mean squat...Peltoms was the driving force behind the whole glacier thing. Wseigmund, Peltoms and I added most of the referenced material. Lulu added some too and worked hard on getting those graphs accurate and then he began the laborious task of citing all the article. I helped with this, but the conversion to the harvard style of referencing, which was really useful due to the alphabetical nature of that reference style, was mostly his doing. You copyedited, created the superscripting for the harvard referencing, and most importantly...provided a very detailed and excellent critical analysis of the entire article. Everybody pitched in!--MONGO 10:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You are a a major contributor to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 which is now a Featured article....good work!--MONGO 06:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)