User talk:Doc glasgow/Dec 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Doc glasgow

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Werdnabot (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 2 January 2007 (Automated archival of 2 sections from User talk:Doc glasgow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Test

Test test test Docg 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wednabot test Docg 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned your name in an RFarb

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned a recent interaction between yourself and another user in this RFarb[[1]]. I'm sorry I couldn't provide a better link. I'm terrible with links and can't figure out how to link to a section on a page. I also have a terrific headache that's impeding the progress of my learning.

However, given the nature of the thing, I thought it best to just go ahead and let you know - even if the link itself is unpretty. I'm conflicted about including these activities, since I wasn't directly involved (other than the fact that I witnessed it as it was happening).

I would rather not take it out because I do feel it's important, but I'm sorry in advance if it causes you any trouble or concern. On a side note thought your comments were spot-on and long overdue.NinaEliza 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks.--Docg 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jimbo' birthday

What motivated you to change Jimmy Wales's birthday three days ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.193.201 (talk • contribs).

Well a) it wasn't verified b) as it was irrelevant personal information, I removed it per policy --Docg 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Wales on September 18, 2004 settled an argument about whether he was born on August 8, 1966 and August 7, 1966. He wrote August 7. Look at the history. Why would you remove what the guy whom the article is about says about himself? I believe considering the source, August 7 should be restored.
MY second point still hold good. Please sign your posts.--Docg 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, your second point does not hold up to scrutiny. The policy says: "While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures." A) It would be hard to argue that anyone included in Time's list of the world's most 50 influential people is not a public figure. Plus, Wales has never shied away from media attention. B) Wales's birthday is widely known and verified by such sources as the BBC, the International Speakers Bureau (which represents Wales and books him for public speaking events), and Who's Who (a publication that verifies all of the information it prints with the subject). Just plug Wales's name and DOB into Google, and you will see that it is all over the Web. C) The only legitimate reason for removing the DOB for a public figure, according to the official policy, is if the subject himself complains. As Wales posted the date himself, we can assume that he is not complaining about its publication.
The subject has actually made it clear he had concerns about the date. I removed it in the same manner I regularly handle such OTRS issues. Having the exact date of birth is not critical to the article.--Docg 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is the subject of the article disputing the date that he posted himself? Or is the subject of the article now regretting that he made his birthdate public? Birthdates are a common feature of biographical encyclopedias. I have signed my question as per your request. I posted the second comment, by the way, not the first and third. (You, I believe, can verify this.) I was looking at Wales's biography and thought it was strange that the birthdate was missing, considering Wikipedia has access to the subject of the biography. I thus began perusing the history, and thought it was even stranger that a possibly innacurate date had been posted for so long. If birthdates are not relevant to biographical articles, perhaps Wikipedia should exclude them from all biographies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylestevens (talk • contribs).

Perhaps we should. As it is, we generally remove them if the subject indicates they would prefer them not to be there.--Docg 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. Good result.--Docg 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page.)[reply]

Thanks. The issue is now academic, I have withdrawn.--Docg 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

After doing some of my own research I have thrown my weight behind you for ArbCom. Good luck. --Rtrev 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Docg 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I regret the circumstances that have led you to withdraw from the election. I have every reason to believe that, had you been elected, you would have proven to be a valuable member of the committee. I sincerely hope the early voting does not in any way negatively influence your continuing invaluable contributions to wikipedia. Thanks for all you've done, and for having volunarily subjected yourself to the pressures of the election. Badbilltucker 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comments are appreciated.--Docg 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input sought

You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; btw, if you are still concerned about my views on admin discretion, I agree with the recent WP:PRO, both for process and against it.Septentrionalis 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider

Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here [2]. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, (Radiant) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer at a national public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a former candidate, if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org and will forward you my number. Neille i 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Aw man

I was so going to vote for you!--Atlantima 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have too, if I could. As it is, I'm happy you're an admin. "Politics" be damned.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About IP address 192.203.136.246

Hey, I noticed the warning about vandalism which I didn't do -- I just wanted to say that this IP address doing the vandalism (192.203.136.246) is actually the wireless address for an entire community college (College of DuPage)... I hope you won't block it :-/

Sincerely, Victoria Wang | viv4ce(a)yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.203.136.246 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Create an account and you'll be fine. Otherwise, no guarantees. --Docg 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of "Keep" consensus judged for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's University Chess Club

Doc, I should make myself clear to start that I don't think there was consensus to delete the Queen's University Chess Club article. However, I also do not feel that there was consensus to flat-out keep the article either, as only six people took part in the deletion discussion. I would be much more pleased if the article was relisted in order to obtain a clearer consensus, as I think that this article might set a precedent for the inclusion of other clubs at Queen's University in the project. Thanks for your time. Andy Saunders 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-list it.--Docg 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming to ask the same thing. Would it be OK to do this without going through DRV? JChap2007 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just renominate it. You can say the closing admin has no objections if that helps.--Docg 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JChap2007 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhepono

Greetings -- My friend who is a Zuni anthropologist apparently wrote out an article on Uhepono, the head of the Zuni underworld, but when I went to look at it it had already been deleted. Just wondering what was so terrible about it that you wrote "FUCK THIS" in the comments when you deleted it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.28.209 (talk • contribs) }

Aye, right. Your friend who is a respected anthropologist created an article with the sole content <quote>FUCK THIS</quote>? [3]. Troll begone! --Docg 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The article itself said "Fuck this?" Weird... Had it been vandalized after he originally wrote it? (I can't see the link you included, it says "limited to admins only." --67.177.28.209 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. No, only one edit, and it said 'fuck this'--Docg 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused then. Thanks for responding, and working to keep Wikipedia clean! --67.177.28.209 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User name created to Slur an individual

You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

Suppression of Globulation 2

Hello,

You have suppressed the page Globulation 2. You give two reasons: 1) alpha software and 2) no evidence of notability. I am one of the main developer of glob2, but not the creator of the page on Wikipedia. Yet I think that compared to other free software on WP and with respect to the criteria of listed in WP:SOFTWARE, glob2 has his place on Wikipedia:

1) It is true that we list glob2 as alpha software on our web site. I personally decided so some years ago with respect to classical software development cycle, where alpha version is a version with not all features, beta version is a full-featured version with some bugs, and final version is (theoretically) perfect software. This model apply less to free software, where they are released often and constantly improved. Glob2's actual state is much more mature than most free software games. In particular, it is fully playable, including on the Internet, and included in most major distributions. I thus think that the objection about alpha software does not hold.

2) There is several evidence of notability, mostly distribution inclusion but also web site reference. Distribution inclusions:

  • Ubuntu [4] [5] (listed as the real-time strategy game)
  • Debian [6]
  • FreeBSD [7]
  • Gentoo [8]
  • Darwin Ports [9]

There is also several RPM packaged by individuals on the net for RPM-based distributions. Glob2 may be included in other distributions, but I think that this sample shows its inclusion is not isolated. Glob2 is also listed in several web sites. Some of them might have been edited by members of glob2 community, but the amount of comments and reaction shows that we are far from being the only one reading/maintaining those pages:

  • The Linux Game Tome [10], 89 comments, 5 stars on 51 votes
  • Several web sites [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] .. .and more, but I won't copy paste here all google results ;-)

If you want to probe Glob2's notability, feel free to search the web using "glob2" or "globulation 2" keywords.

Thanks, have a nice day--nct 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't supress anything. I simply closed the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globulation 2. I know nothing about software - but blog evidence is not generally admissible in wikipedia.--Docg 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about blog evidence, I shouldn't have put it there. The other reasons (distribution inclusion and journal/non-blog references) are still valid. Sorry to have bother you about that, I will feel a request on Wikipedia:Deletion_review instead. Thanks, have a nice day. --nct 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You posted the following on my talk page [19] but it doesn't make any sense. I have no idea of which archive you are talking about or why/what was done. Could you educate me? Balloonman 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

I think the best idea would be to merge it into WP:LOCAL, and redirect it there. LOCAL is mostly stable and focuses on merging rather than deletion. I don't think it's all that helpful to have WP:SUPERMARKET, WP:RESTAURANT, WP:CHURCH and WP:GAS_STATION and other subsections. Obviously is a church is large enough to be known outside its own city, people can't say "delete per WP:LOCAL". HTH! >Radiant< 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


FYI

Despite of your "IRC" opinion that I am "not worth it", It is only fair of me to give you notification of this edit of mine here [20], and chance to respond to it. I mention it only because the thread is now so long things are easily missed, and I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand. Giano 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother responding to that. When I say you are "not worth it", I meant simply that there is no point in getting upset at, surprised by, or trying to cure, your incivility and assumptions of bad faith. But I guess you'll want to assume I meant something altogether more sinister. I now intend to follow my own advice and comment no further.--Docg 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Doc, shame you ever commented in the first place really, isn't it? Giano 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Docg 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of here, congratulations, you see Kelly's mates are just too powerful [21] who will be the next to stand up to her I wonder. Giano 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fail to understand. Are you assuming anyone who is critical of you is somehow 'mates' with Kelly? That's a tad egocentric. It would be a shame if you left. Not surprising perhaps. But a shame nevertheless. I'd much have preferred working with you constructively and in a civil manner. However, perhaps that will happen. No-one as addicted as us leaves for long. I predict you'll be back. --Docg 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoot.

For outstanding common sense and civility. Ben Aveling

Hi Doc, Sorry I didn't drop this in earlier. You have, in mine eyes, been an outstanding example of common sense and civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that made my day. It is so much better than the assumptions of bad-faith, I've unfortunately grown used to. I'll put it in my trophy cabinet. --Docg 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, it was well earned. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of sub-heads at RfA

Hi, Doc,

Taking your recent words to heart, I made the Be Bold move and sub-divided the excessively long RfA for BostonMA, which was promptly reverted by user Heliogoland. Would you mind weighing in on whether using sub-headings actually "screws up WP:RFA" as the user has commented? Thanks, --LeflymanTalk 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow/Dec_06&oldid=97953448"