User talk:Doc glasgow/18Feb06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive, talk to me at User talk:Doc glasgow

Contents 1 Something peculiar 2 My RFA 3 dumbass 4 Re: User Goatse 5 Josephus 6 Afd: Lourdes 7 BOINC Logo 8 ATCA logo 9 Abdul Qadir Al Rassam 10 Paedophile Template 11 Re: Userboxes 12 Just kidding 13 RfAr: Template:User pedo 14 Comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Josiah_Rowe 15 Template:User process 16 Brad Christian 17 Lost causes 18 User:86.136.61.186 19 Userboxes 20 Pat On The Back,Per The Top Of Your Talk Page 21 anti pope 22 Template:User Cyprus non-recognition 23 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV 24 TfD 25 Richard Strehle 26 My Welcomes and the Petition 27 Happy Valentine's day! 28 Thanks for voting 29 threats 30 wp:prod 31 Template:User Towel 32 Melissadolbeer again 33 DB 34 Repulican box.

Something peculiar

You may have spotted it, but some parts of what you type are coming out weird. At present, for example, your statement on the bible verses (versus?) RfArb has question marks where apostrophes want to be. I'm 99.9% sure it's not my browser, as it works find with everyone else but you. -Splash^talk 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed it, although I don't know what happened. I prepared my submission in MS Word and pasted it in. It looked fine last night - but the Metawiki didn't like MS's " and changed it into a strange set of symbols sometime later. --Doc ^ask? 09:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Doc glasgow/18Feb06, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

dumbass

You should have read that image's license on Template:User debian, it's listed right in there. That's not fair use, that's lincese compliance. Nate 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again, read harder, as in, read at all, "Debian Open Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project." Dumbass. Nate 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, I'd rather speak the truth and be disliked than kowtow to stupidity and fit in. Since you ignored the license when I pointed out the fact that you had skipped over it, you earned the title of dumbass. Being nice to fools and charlatans is not the way to get things done, when a child steals a cookie you slap them, when a person does something stupid you call them down. While you are only human, you made an ass of yourself by being dumb - thus the calling of an apple, "an apple," was well justified. Nate 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Carry on like that and I guarentee you will not last long here.--Doc ^ask? 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How so? I did not call you a dumbass, I pointed out that I called you a dumbass for being an ass and dumb at the same time. Is explaining the reasoning of seeing the waxy skin, white flesh and star-shaped seed structure of an object and thus calling it an apple wrong then? Nate 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, best we discontinue this conversation, before I mistake you for someone who's trolling. --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: User Goatse

Thanks for your notification.

The reason for my block was that I thought he was the offending user vandalising with an image of a penis. That logical leap is about a nanosecond away. I didn't stop and see that it was indeed an anon I actually reverted. The username is inappropriate and this user will probably take some heat for it sooner or later. I do not dispute the unblock. Inter\^Echo 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, you are right about the username, and the mistake was an easy one to make. --Doc ^ask? 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Josephus

I'm not "translating" his name into Hebrew. That was his name, as any Hebrew-speaker can tell you. You're welcome to try and read the Yosef ben-Matityahu entry in Hebrew Wikipedia at http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3_%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95. Aramaic and Hebrew are the same thing, as far as Second Temple-period Jewish names are concerned. "Joseph" and "Matthias" are English King James-style corruptions from a millenium and a half later. You might as well use German or French transliterations and then adopt them as the name he used 1500 years before! Josephus and Flavius Josephus (not Josephus Flavius?!) are of course the Roman names he took after he changed sides. Will you restore his original name or will I? Monosig 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd: Lourdes

Hi there.

Recently you closed an article about the alleged miracles at Lourdes. You left it as a no-consensus and defaulted to keep.

Could I trouble you to take another, maybe slightly closer look at this? Here's why:

• The article is a POV fork. The article about the miracles at Lourdes that contains NPOV discussion of all sides might be at Lourdes (though as it is, there's precious little discussion there). The article in question, The Case against alleged miracles at Lourdes is clearly, as stated by its title, only one POV. (I don't believe in miracles, fwiw, but I don't believe in POV forks even more.)
• A brief count of the bolded "votes" reveals 5 Deletes, 2 Keeps, and 1 Merge. However, here are the texts of the two Keep votes:
  • Keep but inject some balance. Maybe rename it as something like "The Alleged Miracles at Lourdes", then have a section on "The Case For", and a section on "The Case Against"
  • Keep Barbara Shack 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) There is a case for merging this article into one stating the case for and against miracles at Lourdes.

Those aren't straightforward "keeps." They're really more like "merges." So actually, every single vote is critical of the fact that this article is a POV fork. There's no way to un-POV fork it with its current title, either; that's got to be deleted.

Given the above, I was thinking about taking this to DRV. But I thought I'd solicit your view first. Another way to do this might just be a page move, to something like "Miracles at Lourdes" or "Alleged Miracles at Lourdes" or something like that. Then, the article title wouldn't be inherently NPOV. Ikkyu2 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)'

Enh, you're on wikibreak. I'll just be bold and see what shakes out. Ikkyu2 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no straight consensus to delete, and that defaults to keep. However, there is nothing to prevent you moving the article to another name or merging it, as these do not require deletion. Default keep does not mean 'keep as is'. So go and be bold. --Doc ^ask? 09:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BOINC Logo

Since you removed the BOINC logo from Template:User BOINC, I thought you may be an expert on licencing rules. Can I refer you to the discussion on Image talk:Boinc.gif and ask if this page is sufficient to put a GNU Licence (1.2 or higher) on it and put it back in the template? Or do I need to both Dr David P. Anderson to find out? crandles 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgable on copyright law. I was simply enforcing wikipedia policy, which is that images tagged as used under 'fiar use' cannot be used other than per WP:FUC. If this image is different, what you need to do is to get the tag changed. Ultimately, I removed this not because of the law (which may be a matter of interpretation) but because of wikimedia policy. --Doc ^ask? 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ATCA logo

Doc, I DESIGNED THE ATCA logo, and I have full permission to use it! Expatkiwi

Abdul Qadir Al Rassam

Hi, I've added some information to the article. You might like to have a look at the result? Dlyons493 Talk 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Paedophile Template

I think that it is better TfDed then deleted unilaterally. I never re-delete after another admin undeletes. Maybe if it was Sideways, it would be fine, but let this run through TfD.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't realised it had been previously deleted and undeleted (why?)- I just saw the ghastly thing and shot it, I din't for a minute think anyone could have a problem with that. It's obviously a slam dunk delete, so I see no point in a debate. But I've no intention of wheel waring - let TfD have its fun. --Doc ^ask? 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Userboxes

Are you trying to say I should stop creating userboxes? OK, fine! Alex 101 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. But certainly stop violating WP:FUC --Doc ^ask? 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now I know why you kept removing the images I restored. But, I really don't want to be blocked from this. Alex 101 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just be careful with images in user and template space and you'll be fine. --Doc ^ask? 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding

Take a chill pill, Doc.  :) I was just having a rare bit of fun on that undeletion vote. I'm taking a wikivacation anyway. Place is driving me nuts. - Lucky 6.9 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, there was so much idiotic voting in DRV, that my irony sensors were perhaps failing me :) --Doc ^ask? 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RfAr: Template:User pedo

I appreciate your attempt to provide a complete log of my edits as part of the RfAr, but I must say that I had hoped you would be able to see the absurdity of censoring legitimate opinion in User space. --Dschor 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Troll, begone. --Doc ^ask? 14:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack, or are you just happy to see me? --Dschor 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Josiah_Rowe

Hi Doc,

I noticed your recent comments regarding Josiah Rowe's RfA. While I agree that perhaps stricter standards should be applied to Adminship than may be currently (I'm not an advocate of Jimbo's "No big deal" concept), I do believe that in this case, Josiah is exactly the kind of editor who should be "upgraded" to Admin: a balanced, thoughtful and considerate individual who respects Wikipedia policy and takes time to explain their appropriateness when dealing with the ever-increasing inflow of new users. I've interacted with Josiah on articles about Lost (TV series) from the time he signed on last year. Even as a new editor, he was willing to jump right in and organize discussions for the betterment of other, longer-term editors, constructing opinion polls according to WP policy, when no one else was willing to take on the challenge. Please take a look at how he handled himself in this recent opinion poll he put up on whether the article title "Lost" should be exclusively used for the TV series. While I was opposed to the proposal, I was much impressed with his deliberation and care in handling it. He had been asked twice before by current Admins whether he would stand for RfA, to which he demurred. I'd suggest that your "neutral" vote is a statement of your feelings about how some current matters have been (mis)handled by other Admins, rather than an honest appraisal of whether Josiah is qualified for the position, and would use his powers wisely. I'd hope you reconsider, and cast your vote in his favor, rather than using it as an opportunity to express your displeasure with the current state of affairs.

Thanks, Leflyman^Talk 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, you've guessed correctly. I'm coming to the opinion that we are making sysops to easily, and indeed we we may even have too many admins at the moment. We seem to be moping up after poor ones all too often. From now on, I'm only going to support outstanding candidates, and oned with whom I've had enough personal interaction to trust. More doubtful or inexperienced candidates, I'm going to be more willing to oppose. I looked at at Josiah Rowe contributions to the wikispace, and those left me feeling he was inexperienced. However, the endorsements of his editing activities suggest that he might be a good candidate - hence my 'neutral'. Since I don't know him personally, I would not offer support in any case. Neutral votes are discounted anyway, so it makes no difference eitherway. Good luck to him. --Doc ^ask? 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your prompt response and clarification. —Leflyman^Talk 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User process

Please do not deliberately change the meaning of userboxes, especially when the change could be construed as trolling. Thank you. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is a wiki, so people can change things if they wish. OK, my chage was perhaps making a WP:POINT (sorry) but the box itself is doing just that. (Anyway, these things should all be gone before too long). --Doc ^ask? 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is getting more and more difficult to assume good faith on your part, Doc. As an administrator, I would expect you to set a better example. Your changes to a number of templates have been disruptive and violations of WP:POINT. There is reason to believe that you are, in fact, a troll. --Dschor 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want. I really don't care. --Doc ^ask? 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a wiki. Changing them is fine as long as the meaning of the userbox is not changed, just like changing an article is fine as long as the meaning of the article does not change. (For example, you wouldn't change cheese to describe cattle, would you?) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange logic. No, because cheese is about cheese, unsurprisingly. However a template about process could say many things about process. --Doc ^ask? 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you want to create your own template that expresses a different idea about process, no one is stopping you. Do not hijack others' userboxes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This policy in a nutshell:

You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

WP:TROLL. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read my first response to you (above), you will see that I apologised for my WP:POINT, and after only one that instance, I desisted from altering your blasted userboxes. You are the one who has kept coming back to my talk page to unneccessarily push the argument. If there is an ogre here, then I think my sin has been to feed it. --Doc ^ask? 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brad Christian

I note that you have put a {{prod}} notice on this page. I don't have much objection to it being proposed for deletion (now) but, given that an AfD resulted in "no consensus" on 2 Dec 2005, would it not be more appropriate to move it on to AfD proper so that it can be discussed? Then it can be sorted out without it looking like a deletion outside proper process. Sliggy 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the prior afd. Perhaps it would be better to renominate it. --Doc ^ask? 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost causes

I thought a good deal about this last time you gave this good advice. My conclusion at that time was that continuing to engage someone in a calm and civil manner, and asking nicely for the inappropiate behavior to stop could never go wrong. Regardless of what a person's underlying motivations are, by being nice we provide them with less ammunition to resist us with. Why I consistantly fail to use this approach in my most public problem is a bit of a mystery, even to me.

Miss. S. Kyle is a good example. On one occasion she was inserting innappropiate images and links into an article. (Well, almost certainly on more than one occasion, but I mean on this one occasion.) By continued empathetic discussion it was possible to make some slight inroads with her. I continue to believe that she was operating in good faith, while still supporting her being blocked. If you're nice and pleasant and firm, than in the end we don't have to block someone for "trolling", something that we can never prove and is totally subjective. We block them "with regret, for irreconcilable differences."

brenneman^(t)(c) 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:86.136.61.186

Just in case you weren't aware, this anon, who has been adding a number of dubious speedy tags, is -Ril-. A quick check of the IP's contributions can easily confirm this, as it has been involved in -Ril-'s current ArbCom case and it also made a comment at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, a comment that was later amended by -Ril- to mark it as his own. As such he might have violated the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-#Continuing_misbehavior part of his last ArbCom, which specifically dealt with his incorrect adding of speedy tags.

I should also thank you for mentioning Davies and Allison's work on the Gospel of Matthew. It's great. I'd been ignoring it because at my library it was dated as coming from 1897, but it seems that was the date the series began, and they put the same date on all volumes. - SimonP 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming to the same conclusion on the IP. Can we get a sock check? I've actually been meaning to order a copy of Davies and Alision, as I no longer have access to a uni library. --Doc ^ask? 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't yet do sock checks, and I also feel I should keep my involvement on these things to a minimum as my views on -Ril- aren't exactly neutral. Try asking at WP:AN, or see if someone like David Gerard is active. - SimonP 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the IP is really doing too much harm. I'll watch it for a while. --Doc ^ask? 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, no admin is actually going to delete any of those articles. - SimonP 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

So what kind of images can I put in userboxes?? --Revolución (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. --Revolución (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pat On The Back,Per The Top Of Your Talk Page

Thanks for the grammar fix. I know we always haven't agreed in the past, but i'm glad that grammar can be bigger than differences. Feel free to consider this a pat on the back, per your notice at the top there. Let me know if I can help you with anything. Karmafist 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very gracious. The pat is accepted in the spirit that it is offered. Cheers. --Doc ^ask? 21:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

anti pope

Can you see what I'm up to, and do you approve? - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Im a bit sceptical as to whether it will work, but worth a try. We have a problem in that most CSD are simply speeding what other deletion processes would overwhelmingly kill. Thus contested speedies are resolved on AfD. But T1, which I approve of, is designed to allow us to kill what TfD is refusing to deal with. That's fine - but if admins disagree on the interpretion of 'divisive and inflammetory', we have no mechanism to resolve the dispute. I don't know how we square that circle.

Personally, I'd lower the deletion threshhold from 70% to 50% on anything that is not an article. (I can't see why non-encyclopedic stuff should be protected by an inclusion bias designed to preserve encyclopedia content). If we changed the threshhold from 'consensus to delete' to 'consent to delete', we'd solve the problem, and it would still be 'democratic' Indeed moreso. --Doc ^ask? 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh... that's radical, man! Having, for the first time, actually looked at the user-box life cycle from the get-go, I notice that there exists a giant menu (or three!) of userboxes, and that often the first thing that new editors do is slap ten boxen on their user page.

So, not only are new users focusing on the "me me me" aspect instead of the "encyclopedia", they get sucked into the whole "evil admin" paradigm when one of their coveted boxen vanishes. I think that we should look at cutting this off at the source rather than scrambling around picking up the pieces afterwards.

brenneman^{T}{L} 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Cyprus non-recognition

I've undeleted this. The final version mearly restates the persistion of the turkish goverment.Geni 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should have discussed this with me FIRST. May I draw your attention to Arbcom's recent ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. I quote:

Wheel warring

8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

--Doc ^ask? 02:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No. You speedy deleted. I speedy undeleted. It won't be a wheel war unless you decide to revert my descision.Geni 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's how I would have defined 'wheel war' too. But that is not what arbcom have just said. Read it again. --Doc ^ask? 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. One small problem. Look at the date the case closed and look at the date I undeleted it. I'm in the clear on that one. You might be able to get me for removeing your page protection however if they try and inforce that one the result will be pure chaos.Geni 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you. (Anyway the time of the case closing doesn't matter as this isn't a 'new law' but a declaration of existing principle being applied to events that happened in a case some days ago.) Actually, I'm surprised by that ruling, and I'm not quite sure what it's implications are. They souldn't have to 'enforce it' - we should pay attention anyway. My only criticism of you is that you might have come and discussed my deletion, rather than overturning it and then informing me. This being undeleted was hardly an urgent matter, it could have waited a few minutes. --Doc ^ask? 02:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for it's deletetion. There is no reason it could not have been run through TFD. The template in it's curent form mearly recognises the officail positition of turkey. Are we going to remove any references to being Taiwanese from usepages?Geni 02:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps there is a case to be made. (Although the box expresses a POV and does so in negative terms). But we might have had this discussion before you undid my action. Perhaps I would have had an overwhelming argument for deletion, that you had missed, which would have convinced you not to undelete, we will never know. --Doc ^ask? 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you could have made it before you deleted it. If you have such an argument please present it. The box is not a copyvio. It is not libel. It is not vandalism.Geni 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't make an argument when one 'speedies' something, that's the whole point. The argument is made only if someone asks the admin to reconsider, or places the item on DRV. You denied me the chance to make my case when you undeleted (out of process and) without discussion. Anyway, I am not going to wheel war with you on this. (Anyway it is an attack template. It does not say 'this user accepts the sovereignty of Northern Cyprus' - which would still be POV and divisive - it goes out of its way to attack the Greek (and UN) position. But I'm not going to debate this - unless you want to undo your action and start the conversation again. --Doc ^ask? 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to make your case on TFD as is any other user. The template does not attack the position it mearly disagress with it.Geni 03:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the case you should have made, when you invited me to reconsider my decision to speedy delete it. Who know, you might have even been able to convince me. You should not have undeleted before discussing it with me. That is what wheel wars are made of. --Doc ^ask? 03:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Back when I inforced the 3RR I had my blocks pulled quite often. It never triggered a wheel war with the exception of the case where the person I blocked pulled the block. Article ownership is discouraged. Why should admin actions be any different. Now if you have a case please present it.Geni 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you want a justification for a speedy, what about this: WP:TFD states clearly that biased templates can be deleted; WP:NOT requires people to get off their soapboxes and do their blogging elsewhere; and WP:JIMBO has spoken out against userboxes expressing a political or religious point of view. If you think that it's likely that these templates would survive TfD, it's only an indication that something is wrong with TfD, since the policies couldn't be clearer. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)--Doc ^ask? 13:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The template is no more biased than Template:User Republic of China. A userbox is hardly blogging in any halfway conventional sence of thw word. Trying to follow jimbo in this case will be interesting when you try to delete Template:User world. Should be fun to watch from a safe enough distance. Whether the userbox is likely to survive TFD is an irrelivance. It costs you nothing to list the userbox on TFD and TFD is far from overloaded.Geni 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how you get that. The RoC box says somthing about the geographical loction of the user. The Cyprus onemakes a political statement - so you are setting up straw men. Follow Jimbo? He suggested that POV userboxes should not be used! --Doc ^ask? 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The RoC does not exist nor has it existed for about 50 years. Of course the people living there might claim it does but aparently most national goverments disagree. Template:User world is a POV userbox. Are you going to try and delete it?Geni 18:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I obviously don't know enough China to go down that route. So not right now, no. (Although are you trying to feed me WP:BEANS?--Doc ^ask? 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm showing you the logical end point of your position. The world contians lots of dissputed teritories.Geni 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And wikipedia NOT a soapbox to carry on that dispute. --Doc ^ask? 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

stateing very briefly your opinion of that disspute is not carrying it on.Geni 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore with regards to Template:User MxPx what was wrong with just editing it to remove the image?Geni 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD

How can you possibly justify speedily deleting a template that is in a TfD discussion with consensus to keep? It's disgraceful. Deano (Talk) 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Because speedy deletion does not require consensus. The template was marked by another editor as a speedy t1, 'divisive and inflammetory'. I took the view that the template met the WP:CSD and so I deleted it. It was subsequently recreated out of process, so I deleted it again. Anyway, to quote WP:TFD states clearly that biased templates can be deleted; WP:NOT requires people to get off their soapboxes and do their blogging elsewhere; and WP:JIMBO has spoken out against userboxes expressing a political or religious point of view. If you think that it's likely that these templates would survive TfD, it's only an indication that something is wrong with TfD, since the policies couldn't be clearer. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC). --Doc ^ask? 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Strehle

Hello. Another sock has (User:MLA2)turned up at the afd and keeps on doinbg afd fraud. Please block. thanks. Blnguyen 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Doc ^ask? 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My Welcomes and the Petition

Thanks for the constructive olive branch, Doc. I would love to if you know of another way to get signatures for it, ultimately to me who signs it isn't as important as how many people have signed it, for a reason you're hopefully going to see in a few weeks(that's a secret for now).

As for the newbies in wiki-politics, that argument just isn't cogent to me -- Joeyramoney was a newbie with no knowledge of or desire to get involved in Wikipolitics(he was a kid who saw a userbox that he thought was funny -- that's it under AGF), but he had it thrusted upon him anyway by a bloodthirsty mob. I'm sure if I looked there are probably more instances like that, and at this rate, there are going to be more like it. Newbies are still intelligent people, and I don't pester them if they don't sign it-- right now the ratio of people i've welcomed with that template to people who have signed is around 5%. Karmafist 04:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

Wow, great, even as it shrinks in the wash :) --Doc ^ask? 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting

Even though you did not vote for me, I want to thank you for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly, reasonably and in keeping with the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

threats

I'm afriad I will not take it as a final warning as I have not been warned about it before. I think you should read WP:AGF before making threats. The fact that you disagree with me on certain matters does not make it okay to discriminate. Deano (Talk) 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on you user page. I made an honest mistake - no need to jump off the deep end. --Doc ^ask? 18:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - thanks for the apology. It's an easy mistake to make - I almost believed it myself! DJR (Talk) 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

wp:prod

Thanks for helping out with Proposed Deletion. I suggest that you should give a meaningful reason for deletion when you close PROD deletions; the reason "prod +5" doesn't convey anything, and once the page is deleted that's all that non-admins can see. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can spell it out, but I'm not sure wht more can be given. The reason for deletion is that it has been on prod for 5 days without objections. --Doc ^ask? 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Towel

I was amazed to get your message about this template before I had even finished it.

I would just like to explain how the offending picture got there. I originally intended to use the picture of the pile of towels, but thought I had seen one of Douglas Adams with a towel over his shoulder that might have been better. This picture didn't show the towel clearly enough and all in all didn't look very good, so I got rid of it. In the mean time I must have pressed the Save button by mistake.

I have created userboxes with copyright problems in the past, due to a misunderstanding on my part, and have learnt my lesson. I hope you understand.

Blarneytherinosaur 09:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but when the image is in the box I can only assume that's what you intended. No harm done. --Doc ^ask? 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take on board you suggestion and will take more care in the future. Blarneytherinosaur 09:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Melissadolbeer again

• TheFacts (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

User:TheFacts is a sock puppet of Melissadolbeer - he/she has just vandalised WP:RFAR - [1]

I know that you and I don't see eye to eye, and not even concerning Melissadolbeer, but I do know that you blocked blatent attack sockpuppets like this one before. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think our disagreement on that user concerned tactics rather than assesment. Blocked as a trolling sock-puppet anyway. --Doc ^ask? 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DB

Hi, can you please use TFD instead of speedy deletion. I think you will find it is much less divisive and disruptive to wikipedia.--God of War 20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if the boxes meet T1, there is no need for TfD. I think you misunderstand how deletion works. --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are tagging existing user boxes for speedy deletion despite Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Regarding_the_new_Template_CsD. It would be be better to edit them to make them less divisive. --Henrygb 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has since made it clear that his 'softly softly' approach has failed. We now have 6,000 userboxes and that is 'unacceptable'. The bottom line is sooner or later the vast majority will go. --Doc ^ask? 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Where has this been made clear? The above link appears shows how this whole tirade people like you have needs to be toned down. The problem is that it has given people like you too much power and allowed you to hand down deletions just because you feel like it. This is just creating problems and I think you need to stop using speedy deletion. --Horses In The Sky 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1. 'My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable' Jimbo Wales, Signpost interview, IRC, Feb 15, 2006
2. And perhaps a lot clearer [2] --Doc ^ask? 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Helpful hints As one Christian to another, let me say you're giving the followers of Jesus a bad name by speedily delete the same-sex marriage box. It's one thing to be against something, it's quite another to not allow others to voice their opinion. Do restore at your convenience. Blondlieut 02:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my personal beliefs don't enter into my editing. All POV userboxes need to go, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I've deleted ones that I support and ones I oppose. --Doc ^ask? 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems just a bit silly. Isn't being a Christian, for example, POV, from the perspective of a non-Christian, and wouldn't all Christian-related userboxes be POV and thus appropriate for removal? Certainly being Christian is not an immutable characteristic, like being from New Jersey (to take a random example), so I would think so. I would also suggest that, unlike for a Buddhist, the mere identification as a Christian, to the extent one might be carrying out the "great commission," indeed does go beyond mere identification. Christians aren't capable of simply asserting they're Christian; the assertion itself is meaningful and ... POV (it's led to wars and death and crusades and the like ... and feeding people to the lions, so the assertion of one's Christianity as "polemical" in and of itself is hardly a matter of speculation on my part). But perhaps more importantly, seeing as how a user page is not encyclopedic, using the NPOV/POV paradigm to describe userboxers seems somewhat off the mark. Blondlieut 12:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You have tagged and led to the deletion of several userboxes I was using. I think TfD, which gives time to people using the boxes to comment on them, should be used. SD is unfair: we have no chance to defend our userboxes. Admin war is a petty thing, and I'd like to avoid it, but I am seriously tempted to restore 'my' boxes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Repulican box.

The least you could have done was revert it to a redirect like the last person. Fairuse was a misnomer, based on the earlier arguments about it. At the time, fair use was NOT policy. I reverted it because of the cited legal arguments made it clear that it was legally usable, not as a claim of fair use per se. I just left it under that name. It is sad that the policy is based on flawed legal reasoning coupled with a US lawsuit paranoia. I guess I will have to change it to the "valid" link that I left with since you were not courteous enough to do so. Sloppy.

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)