User talk:Doug Bell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006 February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006 April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006 August 1, 2006 – November 27, 2006

Contents 1 Bwa haha! Revenge! 2 From one new admin to another 3 dungeon master article 4 Speedy keep? 5 My RfA (Kafziel) 6 Adminship 7 Template for photos 8 Re:I wish you the best 9 Blocking of Silvastorm: 10 World's Longest Poem 11 Your reply on WP:ANI 12 Wow 13 RE: Why do you keep replacing the dashes in my signature? 14 MfD nomination 15 Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report timestamp parsing broken 16 All the subpages? 17 Wikipedia Weekly interview? 18 Hi 19 Movies that feature head explosions 20 Vandalizing user page 21 Sorry 22 You're Welcome 23 I'm impressed 24 Thanks for your suggestions on User:Yuser31415/Wikipedia game 25 Button 26 How many edits would be enough? 27 Talk page 28 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series 29 Heads-Up 30 Editprotected request 31 An idea 32 Protected Talk Page??? September 11 2001 attacks 33 ............................. 34 Edit counts 35 NPOV rewrite 36 Mind Benders 37 Withdrawn 38 Firearms 2 (computer game) deletion question 39 Thank you 40 5P 41 About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series 42 Award: You are a funny, funny guy 43 Why do you guys have to be such a pain in my ass? 44 Your input is requested 45 Here's another Cplot Sock 46 Wikiproject Golf 47 Re: Please don't edit a closed discussion 48 RfC 49 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series 50 Butt-Head 51 Butt-head 52 mfd top 53 Username 54 Sandbox Templates 55 Thanks 56 Next time I get blocked... 57 re: Moral support? 58 Mail 59 Please don't be disruptive 60 User:Cool Cat/Wikistress status 61 Thanks 62 Thank you for voting 63 (mutters under her breath) 64 MONGO 65 ? 66 Toy Story wiki. 67 Re : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles closing 68 Template you might appreciate 69 Withdrawn RfA 70 Freebird... The Movie article 71 The best one there 72 My RFA (TeckWiz) 73 PROD on User:Sean Canavi 74 Thanks for voting

[edit] Bwa haha! Revenge!

Dirtying your pristine page! --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This means war!  :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From one new admin to another

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me and your compliments, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dungeon master article

Hi, Doug. Feel free to take whatever you want from the article. All my stuff is released under a CC license, but I've been lazy lately and haven't been putting in the little license box. I'll go do that now! --Matt 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keep?

Just curious why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Foundation for Civil Liberties with speedy keep after 4½ hours and only two keep comments? It seems like it should have been left to run a little longer, although I agree it was likely to be kept. I don't have any stake in the article, but I'm just asking since you didn't cite a criteria for the speedy. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well the criterion is #1 from WP:SK. None other than nominator voted Delete and the nominator withdrew its nomination. I was the nominator and I am satisfied that the article should be kept. Alex Bakharev 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks. I already saw your reply on your talk page. Sheesh, not even admins read the banner at the top of my talk page.  :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA (Kafziel)

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

[edit] Template for photos

Hi

I see you've done some work on templates, and was wondering if you'd be interested in working on a better template allowing users to request photographs categorised in ways other than location - in other words an improved version of Template:Reqphotoin? Have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Proposal to revitalise this project. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. I'm afraid I couldn't quite figure out what you want though from the links above. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thank you very much, that's greatly appreciated.

The plan is to revitalize the Photography project, and the main thing that's needed is a more flexible template that article editors can use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphotoin, which puts an entry into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, and allows requests to be categorised by place. But this doesn't allow subject-matter requests to be categorised, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.

To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:

• subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)

• place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable

• any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable

• any other requirements (free text field for comments)

I'm afraid I don't know much about how templates work, nor even whether this sort of thing is actually possible. Maybe several templates would be better than one? Or a template that adds lines to a table? The real need is for a project member who has volunteered to do close-ups, for example, to have quick access to a list of all the photo requests that specify close-up. Likewise, by subject category such as nature etc (I'm not sure how we would keep the allowable categories up to date - or whether that would even be necessary - but I'm sure we can sort out something once the basic tempate ideas have been thrashed out. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me tell you what seems to be possible, and we'll go from there. While you can have a template that adds a request to an article, and places the article (or it's talk page) in a category, that same template can't add the content to a table or list on another page. So the list/table thing would require the article editor to make a second edit, and I don't think this is the way to go.

If the template merely puts the article in a category, you are fairly limited in the number of qualifying fields—adding too many field will hopeless fragment the categories to the point where they are no longer useful. The alternative is to place the page in several cross-indexed categories (i.e. Category:Articles needing nature pictures and Category:Articles needing pictures from New York). This has issues however of potentially overwhelming an article's legitimate encyclopedic categories with the maintenance categories. One solution here is to use the template on the talk page, so it is the talk page that is categorized.

Ultimately, what would probably serve the project's needs the best is to have a relatively few (or even just one) categories and then convince somebody to create a bot that will periodically collect and coalate the additional information from the pages in the categories. I've never created a bot, and although it's easily within my technical abilities, I'm not volunteering (sorry). I would be happy to do any template work, which could capture all of the relevant information. Probably, a single template with lots of optional parameters would serve the needs best. The bot can always be developed later to provide a single repository of the information for easy scanning.

Hope that helps in sorting out the issue. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. As you say, a multi-parameter template plus a bot sounds the way to go. No idea who can do the bot end of things, but we can worry about that as we go on and hopefully get more users involved. regards. --MichaelMaggs 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several users that have bots that do similar things (i.e. User:Mathbot comes to mind). The easiest way is to get the developer on one of these bots to make modifications so that it can coalate the photo requests. I don't think this is a big hurdle. You can also make a request at WP:BOTREQ.

So for the template, all I need are your requirements. This pretty much is just a list of the criteria you want as input and how you'd like this both reflected in the output on the page and used by the bot for coalation. Once I have that, the template is pretty straight-forward to create. (BTW, I'll be away tomorrow, so don't expect a speedy response.) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I hadn't forgotten, but have been a bit busy with RL for the last few days. I'd like to give it a bit more thought before deciding, but I'll try and get back to you by the weekend. Many thanks for reminding me. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:I wish you the best

Thank you for the kind words, and for making your opposition so well thought out. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of Silvastorm:

Thanks for blocking this clearly disruptive user, although I would've quite happily given her another chance. I tried my hardest to get her (or him gulp!) to be civil & take part undisruptively, but obviously they didn't partake in any of this. I've been called worse though. ;) Spawn Man 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC). P.S. I'm glad you liked my comment on the List of Lost Flashbacks AfD. :)

Three strikes gets you a timeout. Two blankings and then incivility after your extremely civil comment was enough for me. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, extremely civil! I'm one step closer to being a saint lol... ;) Thanks again, Spawn Man 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this is civil - talking about another person behind their back! --SilvaStorm

You are, obviously, free to join in, as you have. If this is the limit of my incivility, I can live with it. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about how knightly I was to Doug, but as he said, you're welcome to join in... Spawn Man 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World's Longest Poem

All I will say is ... my goodness. — Whedonette (ping) 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, there seems to be an irrational emotional attachment, especially considering the offer to transwiki it. Oh well, nothing to do but keep a cool head and persevere. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They've now evidently taken it to WP:ANI. I frankly don't know what to do. Last time I appeared on there and defended myself, I got accused of being "disruptive." — Whedonette (ping) 02:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless you are a sock puppet, I just continue to defend yourself rationally and civily. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That was the plan. :) — Whedonette (ping) 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, the emdash-to-hyphen thing is being done on purpose. I can't remember who — I want to say Yuser, but I'm not 100% sure, and am too lazy at the moment to look through the history — but I remember seeing an edit that was solely a replacement of your emdashes with hyphens, with no added material. Dunno what's up with that. — Whedonette (ping) 02:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Christ, now Yuser joined the act on WP:ANI — WP:ANI#User:Whedonette_provoking_users_on_a_MfD. — Whedonette (ping) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  I have to eat dinner...I'll wade in afterward. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm obliged — although both threads are at the moment stagnating. I don't know if the reply thing will feed the fire or not. *shakes head* Anyway, thanks for being in the MfD with me. Obliged. — Whedonette (ping) 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reply on WP:ANI

Hi,

Doug, you wrote this on WP:ANI:

I'll just say that a) sarcasm is hardly the type of thing that needs to be resolved here, or at all; and b) that if anything, Whedonette is the one who could be making a complaint here regarding borderline incivility.

Re (a): provoking users into incivility is an offense per WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR; and Re (b): what do you believe Whedonette could make a complaint about? If you tell me a legitimate reason, I will gladly apologize to her. However, I believe I've done nothing wrong.

Best regards,

Yuser31415^@? 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

That means a lot, coming from you. Thanks so much. riana_dzasta 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're keeping an eye on me talkpage! Ta very much :) riana_dzasta 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Why do you keep replacing the dashes in my signature?

I'm not doing it on purpose, but I have an idea why it might be happening. My web browser is Dillo with which I've had a problem before due to foreign characters [1]. Hmmm... Maybe I should use something like Konqueror instead.... Yuser31415^@? 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination

Why have you nominated a USER PAGE for deletion? Part of the agreement with Wikipedia users is to allow them to create user pages for their own and common use. As such they are private property. You may object to the Once Upon a Time Project -- but user pages should not be deleted. WBardwin 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. User pages and subpages are deleted all the time. See WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? Please direct your comments to the MfD page, thanks. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See below from guidelines on user pages:

Ownership and editing of pages in the user space

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

• Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
• Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
• Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
• In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

In my opinion, the Chapter I worked on for the Once Upon a Time project is harming no one in my user space and belongs to me. You do not have my permission to alter or delete that user page. WBardwin 06:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You don't WP:OWN your user pages, and as it says in the guideline you so helpfully pasted on my talk page, In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed. I don't need your permission, but as the nominator I won't be the closing admin doing the delete anyway. Please take this to the MfD discussion and make your points there. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report timestamp parsing broken

Hi Doug Bell, thanks for the heads-up. I've fixed the parsing library now. Cheers, Tangotango 12:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to write TT apropos the parsing problem ostensibly created by the usage of the ending no earlier than timestamp formulation (which we appear to have forsaken), but it slipped my mind (I didn't imagine, in any event, that it would be easily remedied). Many thanks, then, on ya for having let TT know; I have become so lazy that the thought of actually having to read the RfA page to observe which discussions are "close" and require more participation was altogether overwhelming. Good on ya, Joe 07:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the subpages?

You must be joking. I've only listed a third, and need help with listing the rest. See [2] for the complete lot. Would you mind helping listing the rest. I've done the first column, though the columns are probably different on different browsers. If you could lend a hand, that would be great. Cheers, Moreschi 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll do them all in a jiffy. You're doing it the hard way I think.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What's the easy way? Do tell, please! Or is it something I need the magic buttons for? Best, Moreschi 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except they've all come out as redlinks...confused...Moreschi 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've fixed it. How on earth did you do that all so quickly? Moreschi 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Fixed (forgot the namespace prefix). The quick way is to use grep in a programming editor to make all the changes in a couple of find&replace operations. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly interview?

Hi!

You may or may not be aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives from both sides of the debate and post-debate reorganisation to provide some opposing views.

All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite. While I satisfy all the technical requirements, these community-oriented activities aren't really my thing. I'm not making a judgement on your podcast, but have a hard time making the connection between that type of activity and creating the encyclopedia. I realize that there are a lot of people that both agree and disagree with this viewpoint, and I hope you'll understand my declining your offer and not take this in any unintended manner. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice these people weren't psychotic enough to ask me for a comment. (dryly) I wonder why. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi nice to meet you i'm Pediaguy16.--Pediaguy16 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I will take the wii thing off and I don't know just though I would say hi.--Pediaguy16 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies that feature head explosions

I saw you deleted this after material was merged elsewhere. Please remember that to comply with the GFDL you need to leave a paper trail so people can check who made a particular edit and so people are attributed for their contributions. So deleting the history while keeping the text is something to be avoided. Could you keep that in mind the next time you perform a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The same person that added the content to the deleted page did the merge, so no paper trail necessary. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess in that case you can delete it, but make sure you mention that's the case so people don't start thinking deletion and merging can go together in all cases. While it was appropriate here, it's not allowed in most cases and your AFD closure not could give the wrong idea about how merging works. (Thanks for the quick reply) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Wikipedia:Attribution page you reference has nothing to do with attribution of contributions to Wikipedia, but rather attribution of sources. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just call that a bad link then. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• It took me about a minute to fix it. You didn't cause me too much work, so no harm done. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant with fixing the MfD and leaving notices on the user's talk page that created the deleted article and notifying me of the "issue". I call that busy.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing user page

If you don't stop vandalizing my userpage with your technical babble about AWB, I will be forced to ban you from editing Cleveland Steamer. This is your final fake warning. Do not prod the Deletionist Cabal, for our wrath is awesome and your Java articles weak! :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry for withdrawing the nom — I know you were fighting hard on the deletion side. I just got sick of the ad hominem crap, and decided that it just wasn't worth the hugely excessive amount of crap that got generated as a result. As you said, a lot of people got very emotionally attached to this issue. Hope you won't mind me giving up, and I hope to see you around in my future interactions on the 'pedia. Best wishes. — Whedonette (ping) 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's up to your if you wish to withdraw the nomination. Not so sure it's soley up to you to close the discussion at this point. I'm actually going to raise the question at WP:VPP since I don't know what the precent is. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'd like to let you both know that I have nothing against either of you, even though being the main person arguing for the poem's keep. I don't mind whether the discussion's opened or left as it is, but I think Whedonette's done a very great thing, as I think the way the MfD was going it would've ended in a no consensus.

I look forward to seeing you both round Wikipedia and I hope next time we 'meet', we do so as wikifriends.

Best wishes to both of you,

Yuser31415^@?clean 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Whedonette withdrawing, but at this point closing the discussion is out of order and not simply up to Whedonette, so I've reopened it. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not done a "very great thing," I've done a cowardly thing. I think quite ill of the tactics employed by those who voted to keep the article. I withdrew because I was sick of being personally attacked to the depth I was, including all of the various complaints to the administrators' noticeboard about my supposedly suspicious past. I withdrew because of those threats, and because I was sick of fighting to this absurdist extent over a damn poem. I got metaphorically beat down, and I'm not proud of it. Forgive the tirade, but it's a bit disgusting to have one of you say I've done a "great thing" by capitulating to the tactics you employed. — Whedonette (ping) 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed my withdrawal of the nomination when you removed the MfD closure tags. I restored that, although I did not restore the MfD closure. Precedent is unclear but seems fairly biased towards the nominator being able to withdraw for whatever reason — relevant Google search. No ill will, although it might be worth it to expose it to a more formal clarification at RfC. — Whedonette (ping) 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, nominators withdraw their opinion all the time. The only time it ends up closing the discussion, though, is when they were the only (remaining) voice for deletion. -- nae'blis 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Welcome

I knew there was a reason I voted for your RfA. Congrats on that by the way. *Spark* 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm impressed

		The Firm but Fair Award
		So very impressed by this. I'm glad you can point out unfairness, even if you guys are essentially on the same side of the debate. Excellent work. riana_dzasta 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your suggestions on User:Yuser31415/Wikipedia game

TSSIA (The Subject Says It All). Thanks very much! I hope you enjoy playing.

Cheers, Yuser31415^@?#& 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Button

Template:Don'tpressbutton

--Pediaguy16 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many edits would be enough?

I dunno. One of the finest admins I've seen, I think it was JoshuaZ, only had 2400. Others haven't been ready with far more than that. I say 3,000 in my standards and reserve the right to ignore the number for prood either way. It's vexing to see !voters oppose based on edit count without giving constructive criticism. With < 3,000 eidts, they should be easy to review. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Why is it bad?--Pediaguy16 20:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because those comments are made by other people. Removing them amounts to censure. See WP:TALK#Basic rules for all talk pages. Moving the discussion to your user page still doesn't make it OK to delete all of the comments from your talk page. The are procedures for archiving talk pages, but it is also considered bad form to archive active discussions. I've restored your talk page...please refrain from removing comments from it. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

Thank you for the comment there. Hopefully things can be resolved, it appears the nominator bit off more than he could chew, hopefully with a little outside insight, we can help give people involved in the afd process some more bite-sized pieces. Just H 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shit, he might as well go try to delete Star Wars. I warned you, Doug, Gundam fans are the most foaming at the mouth rule bending inclusionist psychopaths ever, complete with people rending their clothes because X Model 40403 doesn't have a reverse exhaust port like it does in Issue 333 , print 3. Did you know some guy tried to kill his parents for throwing out his Gundam collection? I didn't vote, the whole thing is a wreck, and I'm not the kind of girl who's into gangbangs. :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-Up

As you are an administrator, I wished to alert you to this comment I left on an editor's talk page: [3]. I left it specifically because I'm not looking to get into a fight in the future and don't want someone following me around who demonstrated a marked personal enmity against me in the MfD discussion. And my advice in said comment is really best for him, too, as I think his history of exchanges with me in that MfD would work against his presumable intent of keeping me accountable for my actions. — Whedonette (ping) 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotected request

Reference should point to the page 105. of Senate report, it's under G. Conclusions, please see talk page for alternative… also, if you would please leave a note here, there after you implement the changes… Thanks Lovelight 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the discussion this isn't a completely uncontested addition. While the article is protected and in mediation I'm not about to wade in and get into an {{editprotected}} edit war. If you get consensus on the talk page, then it can be added. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An idea

Hey doug I had an idea I think we should get rid the users that don't have accounts you know ip usrs. Because I was looking at the Recent changes page and it looked like most of the ip users are vandals. So if we get rid of them we will have less vandals do you think thats a good idea? --Pediaguy16 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a frequently presented idea. However, it goes against a primary philosophy behind Wikipedia, notable the third pillar of the five pillars of Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you guys want to keep it so anyone can edit it but you need to be thinking about the side fx. Somebody could make many Spam bots or plant a virus in the data base.--Pediaguy16 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and a nother idea I have I don't know if you guys have this already but I think we should make a bot that can find sockpuppets.--Pediaguy16 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbots and spambots exist—there are ways of dealing with them, although nothing in an open site is 100% effective at stopping vandalism. Regarding the sockpuppet bot, detecting sockpuppets is not completely straightforward. It is basically always possible to game the system and avoid any fixed method of determining sockpuppets. It often comes down to having to make a judgement call because technical indicators are not always adequate for proof.

I'd like to point you to the Village Pump and WP:VPR as a place to make suggestions as I'm not the arbiter of these issues. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected Talk Page??? September 11 2001 attacks

Doug, I see you've stepped in to facilitate discussions on this article. I'm glad to see someone has finally done that. However, I find it odd that this discussion is protected. I went through the history to see what could warrant semi-protection on a discussion page and found little. There wasn't anything to even justify semi-protection on an article, let alone a discussion page. Do you think you could remove the protection now? Thank you. --RespectableWikiEditor 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look at it, but perhaps you should take your sock off and let me know who you are before I start granting requests. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I have little doubt that you have an account that would be allowed to edit the semi-protected talk page, I suggest you use that account instead of creating new ones. Semi-protection is fine for a talk page to prevent disruptive edits, trolling and sockpuppetry. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how the other user feels, but with all of the suggestions that this article is being guarded over by Federal agents (like CIA and NSA even), I'm very scared of using my usual account (that has my email address attached to it). It would be better for us if we could use a different account (especially for this article discussion). --ScaredOfClowns 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you stopped using sockpuppets. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I would never violate Wikipedia policy. --MyFavoriteMutiny 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

... well, you do have to give him points for sarcasm, Doug. Granted, minus several thousand for exposing his sock drawer. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .............................

fine. do whatever you want. But just one more time. .............. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, his page certainly is ... colorful. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counts

Is there a way to perform edit counts on oneself? TonyTheTiger 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:editcount|TonyTheTiger}} will create a link to an edit count page. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV rewrite

Certainly. I was going to do that yesterday but ran out of time. Now closed. (Radiant) 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind Benders

Thanks! That was way too many subpages. (Radiant) 10:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got edit conflicted with you when I tried to close it, so I figured I'd help take the trash out. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about that, although I did have a certain affinity for the oppose reasoning from Tbeatty's initial oppose. It may be that you can do more good as an admin than as an arbitrator. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms 2 (computer game) deletion question

This is the second time it's been deleted, once on prod, and once on AFD. What happens if it's created again? I'm confused now at the criteria on db-repost and whether it applies or not? Last time I tagged something for db-repost I was told that prods and afd's are not eligible for that. So how does it work? Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

{{db-repost}} is for articles/pages that have gone through the related XfD process. It is not for articles deleted via PROD. So if it is created again, you can tag it with {{db-repost}}. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for changing the userbox that I missed. :) (also for your comments on my RfA) --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5P

I respect your position, and I knew my stance might be controversial. I'm not sure I agree that allowing IP-anonymity is required to satisfy WP:5P to satisfy the "anyone can edit"; it's not exactly difficult to establish an identity here, and still maintain true anonymity. I distinguish between the two forms of anonymity because labeled anonymity at least has a possibility of some sort of accountability; IP-anonymity lacks any possibility of accountability -- and in my experience, even anonymous accountability dramatically improves the tenor and quality of an online community. Keep in mind, of course, that there's no way I could actually make such a change happen, and the consensus of the community seems unlikely ever to veer in favor of such a policy shift, so it was really a purely theoretical answer to a hypothetical situation (me being given the power to Change Any One Thing) that is simply not going to occur. Anyway, thanks for your comment -- it gave me a chance to think about the issue again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, from a practical perspective, I'm sure every one here has at times felt that the bad outweighs the good here—certainly I have. But to single that out as the one policy you would change was a pretty strong statement of your view against it, and that makes me uncomfortable on how you might view an arbitration involving an anonymous user. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can say with certainty that my opinion of whether anonymous users should be allowed to edit would not affect my judgment in that way - whether or not they should be allowed, they are allowed, and as long as they are allowed, they should be treated like any other editor. In fact, I've argued at least a few times on article talk pages against other editors who have belittled the anonymity of anonymous editors' contributions. (I wish I could find a couple of examples of it.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

First, though I am not too happy for your decision, I must thank you for your involvement. Your comment signifies that you have read the comment thouroughly. (^^) As your comment "The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in location the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure." There will be time for me or other WP:CE members to request temporal undelete regarding this issue for compile them. I am currently busy working dealing vessel issue as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles in Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam), so my request may be much later... Thank you for your attention. Draconins 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to assist in whatever manner I can. I can't tell you how glad I am that you spent some time to consider your remarks above instead of just reacting. I appreciate it greatly as I spent far longer on this that I had planned in order to sift through all of the discussion and distill consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.     To be frank, I respect you for that; to me this shows that you actually took the time to listen to the people that left comments. Its people like you that the rest of us can turn to when things get tough, and it is this enduring spirit that I see in you. Congrats, you have earned this. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How much time did it take you to close that? I see a 6.5 hour gap but I'm assuming you did some other stuff in the mean time so that your head didn't explode from boredom. Specifically, how much time did it take to read all of the articles in question? --tjstrf talk 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I did less than an hour of "other stuff". It took about three hours just to read it. Took some time to check all of the contributors for possible single-purpose accounts. Took a while to cross check all of the comments to make sure I had addressed everything fairly and as accurately as possible. Took another 45 minutes just to write the closing and about 20 minutes to delete everything. Scattered in there was some time to read some (not all) of the articles and do some cross checking with the source site. It was a longer night than I anticipated, so I really hope it doesn't all blow up and amount to nothing. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, now I feel even worse for wanting to DRV the decision... Thank you for your answer, and please bear in mind that I bear no ill will towards you as a closer, I just have a few issues with your reasoning. --tjstrf talk 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just as well I'm putting the finishing touches on my "Flamed to a Crisp" barnstar, Doug. While I applaud your civility, thoughtfulness, and dedication to proper process, I worry that some others who will get involved on both sides may not be so forebearing as good tjstrf here. Sadly, the Deletionist Cabal feels that Gundam articles are often crufty, but make good attempts at satisfying policy, which is why I won't be voting. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd consider waiting and thinking about at least as long as I took to review and think about it before starting anything. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not. I want to be the one to put up the DRV so as to give what I believe is an optimal argument against the AfD, rather than being beaten to the punch by someone else. Here it is, you can have at me now. --tjstrf talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I think that's the best close of a mass AfD I've ever seen. You treated the situation with great attention and care, and I think the results are very good. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I only criticized your actions because they provided an additional point of weakness in the overall process of the AfD, you really did do your best at evaluating the debate. My real concern is what I stated in my summary of arguments: an AfD which involves more articles than it is reasonable to expect the editors to read cannot build a valid conclusion. Regardless of how the DRV ends up, I plan on making a proposed addition to the deletion process pages to that effect, discouraging mass nominations larger than can be easily read through. I almost made that proposal following the TRAINWRECK afd, now I wish I had. --tjstrf talk 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I voted to delete all, I think this is a very good comprise. Overall, I am very impressed with the way you handled it, your reasoning, and… such. I see now that not all should have been deleted, something I missed in the initial parts of the debate in which I sparsely participated. Bravo! Fledgeling 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award: You are a funny, funny guy

I, ScouterSig award you this Laughing Point award-type-thing for your comment on the Talk:iPod page regarding iPodWizard...

"SEROUIOUSLY"

[edit] Why do you guys have to be such a pain in my ass?

Really. --WhyAllThisAnimosity 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any personal grievances with you. I started here during the aftermath of your userbox deletions, so I suppose you were the first "problem admin" I had any knowledge of. I had very little actual involvement in any of it, so it is only through others that I was made aware of the issues. So I won't be commenting other than these comments here. I wish you the best in your efforts at reform and redemption. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's another Cplot Sock

User:IlluminatiAreWatching. Can't we do something about this? Block the whole range of IP's? Morton devonshire 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure. Already tried that. I think somebody is working another angle on this, but at some level it becomes very difficult to stop someone completely obsessed with evading the blocks and a little bit of technical know how. Anyway, I've blocked this one. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Golf

Hi
I have seen your work on the golf scorecard templates, they are very well designed and very useful. Thank you, I will use these templates alot no doubt. I have just started a new wikiproject, called Wikiproject Golf, so if you are interested feel free to put your name here and start editing! Grover 06:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please don't edit a closed discussion

Well I had to reply to a statement I was discussing. --SilvaStorm

Then reply on either the talk page for the discussion or on Spawn Man's talk page...but please remember to be civil. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

If you're going to file one you might want to read the instructions. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more spesific? --Cat out 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to copy the whole set of instructions starting with when you can file one, what steps have to be taken first, all the way up to how to fill out the sections. You got every part wrong. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Doesn't anybody read the notice at the top of my talk page about leaving the discussion where it started?

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

I'm sure glad you closed that and not me! Thanks. Anyway, for some reason it still appears on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old (twice no less) as being open and I can't figure out why, other than the rediculous length. I was thinking maybe since you'd delved into it you'd know what was going on with the formatting, but if not, no matter, I'll just close out the day with this AfD still showing up as open. --W.marsh 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I went ahead and closed out the day log so it's a moot point. --W.marsh 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butt-Head

Thanks for fixing the copy/paste move thing. However, I don't agree with the move/capitalization change. Both the official MTV website [4] and imdb [5] list it as Butt-Head instead of Butt-head. I don't know if there's anything in the MOS that covers this sort of thing specifically, but when in doubt, I'd lean toward what the original authors say. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, you link to one of the pages I was referring to regarding mixed use. The MTV page has both usages on the same page. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is amazon really the best source for that kind of info? I also found this [6] which appears to be an official Mike Judge website. And while the MTV page isn't consistent, it uses Butt-Head five times out of the seven on the page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can counter with: Is IMDB really the best source for that kind of info? I don't really care which way it goes as I don't have a lot of interest in the topic, but it would be good to be consistent. Wikipedia is quite inconsistent on this itself, so perhaps the first step before making anymore changes is to try and establish consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I only count 6 occurances on the M-TV page, so that would be 4 out of 6—hardly a stirring endorsement. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you count the title bar? --Milo H Minderbinder 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah! No, I didn't. Anyway, maybe it should be Butt-Head, but I think the point is still to reach some consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there was some discussion in september on the main B&BH talk page, now archived. They noted that even offical sources aren't totally consistent, but at that point all pages relating to the show were made consistent with the capital H. Now they are inconsistent with about three with the lower case and quite a few more (character pages etc) with the capital. It isn't a huge deal to me how it ends up, I'm just not very happy with one person starting to change pages and reverse an earlier decision without even bringing it up on the talk pages first. Any ideas on how to potentially clean this up? Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well here is that older discussion. It didn't reach any conclusion either. I don't care if my changes are reverted, what I care about is not having this turn into an edit war and I would like to see consistency and have the matter stated somewhere (where I started the discussion at Talk:Butt-head is probably fine). What the decision is I don't have anymore opinion than I've already stated. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butt-head

Thanks for moving it, Butt-head has no capital 'h'. --SilvaStorm

[edit] mfd top

Thanks for catching that; every XfD uses a different series of templates and places them a little differently, I swear... -- nae'blis 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

I responded to this on my RfA, but repeat it here:

• The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually, and may have now, too many edits to change my username, and I do not wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:USERNAME. Septentrionalis 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the argument that changing your user name to match you sig will be puzzling (although it may be puzzling to go the other way.) You can simply redirect your old user page to the new name. Is it a lot of work for someone to change it? Yes, maybe simply moving to a new user name with clear statements about the move without reassigning all of Pmanderson's edits is the way to go. I just think it is a problem, as I've stated. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said, this is a new criticism to me; changing username to match sig would confuse all those who rely on page history and think of me as Pmanderson - and be an enormous job for WP:CHU; that's why they have limits (see that page). But I hope that this new sig will address the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's a very good solution to the problem. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox Templates

Hi Doug. They have slight differences between them. Particularly Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) has all the interwiki links. Talk pages at the time, and I don't know if they still do, did not handle interwiki links. That is for the reason for Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading). As for Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading) and Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading), there was another reason for these, but they escape me at the moment. I think that the Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading) was used on the Template Sandboxes such that if you were to include a template sandbox, it would not include the heading... I think. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What I want to do is to refactor them so that the bulk of the content that is periodically edited exists in a single place. What I don't want to do is to break your bot. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your notes, Doug; the one on my talk page and your earlier comments on WP:AN/I and Elaragirl's talk page. I did see your comments, and appeciated the time it took to write them, and the candor you used throughout. I agree that Elaragirl acted maturely and level-headed throughout her block, and was really glad the incident didn't appear to damage her good will toward the project or any editors. I hope after her current Wikibreak that she will come back refreshed and ready to tackle the encyclopedia once more. I am also glad to know I have not jeopardized your good will toward me, and of course you have my uttmost respect for your calm and rational manner throughout this. Thanks for your kind words. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next time I get blocked...

...you should arrive with samurai swords and slay all who oppose the Deltionist Cabal! mad laughter

Seriously, I'll catch you on email. I'll have my Blackberry with me, so I can email you. I just have to get off work and I'll be gone till Monday, and powerless to stop you from vandalizing my userpages with disgusting images of kittens, puppies, hugging children, fields of flowers....:p

hugs See you,my friend. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Moral support?

I already had this conversation once with Centrx (see my talk page archive in December). I understand that they aren't going to pass for ArbCom, I understand that they aren't experienced enough for ArbCom, and I'm not trying to insult them. Something I don't agree with is what you said about his opening statement. I know that he wasn't going to pass with a sentence description, but thats part of experience, not trolling or a bad-faith editor. He hasn't acted the best, but it's no reason not to give someone moral support for thier efforts. That editor in particular has been here for 5 years, correct? I don't think we should pile-on oppostion to the max to where he gets discouraged enough to leave, which is what I was trying to prevent. My "credibility", if you wish to call it that, has been "taking hits" for a while now, so it's no suprise someone would think of me less for giving someone moral support. Personally, if you want to take my opinion/!vote/reasoning for nothing, thats your choice, but I will not stand for people to think less of me for trying to raise an editor's morale. When I'm acting in good-faith and when I'm completely competent and knowledgeable of what I'm doing, I find your comment rather insulting on your part. semper fi — Moe 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I tried to phrase my comment to express my view and to provide a perspective on the matter that you may not have considered, without my comment being insulting. So please understand at least that part of my response that no insult was intended. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

You've got some. Cheers, Moreschi 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied. Signing off for a bit now. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't be disruptive

Policy pages cannot be deleted through nomination on WP:MFD as you did with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility. Please stop being disruptive. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please... --Cat out 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the page it started on. Cross-posting your replies is unnecessary. As clearly stated at the top of this page, I will reply on your talk page. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cool Cat/Wikistress status

Resemiprotect that. You are borderlining WP:HA since your edit came right after mine. --Cat out 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Harrassment? Removing the protection is not intended to annoy you in the slightest, and I'm sorry if it did. The purpose of semiprotection is to protect pages from disruptive edits. It isn't intended to be permanent. If your wikistress user subpage comes under attack from vandals it can always be reprotected. I don't believe there is any basis for protecting it, so I set it back to the default that all pages not requiring protection should have. It's been semiprotected for four months, so presumeably the reasons behind protecting it are gone and the semi-protection can be removed. Please don't take this as anything done to annoy you as that is not the intent at all. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike seeing such edits a minute and 39 seconds after mine (especially because of my interaction with moby dick (aka Davenbelle) such stuff really irks me). I'll call this one a coincidence.

That page should be permanently semiprotected. It is my userspace, not an article. I cannot think of a reason why an anon or a new user should be able to edit my stress meter. If they really desire a change, they can mention it on my talk page.

--Cat out 12:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I was at your wikistress level shortly after you is partly coincidence and partly because of some of your recent behavior. I looked at your contribution history to see if you had made any other recent edits similar to this or this. I just happened to look right after you edited the wikistress level, and I was curious to see what you felt about your wikistress, so I went to the page. I happened to notice the protection, so I wondered if you had been vandalized recently. I saw that the semi-protection was 4 months old, so I removed it as I would from just about any page with a 4-month old semiprotection for vandalism.

You'll notice that even though I'm an admin and could protect any of my user pages, none are. I don't believe you have a case for protecting yours either. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For voting neutral and not oppose in the Steward elections. Some people would, and have taken this one incedent and, without understanding the history behind it, simply voted "oppose". I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration regarding this.

This history does go back some ways. Cool Cat has a history of tenditious editing on the English project. This has garnered him a number of people that overwhelmingly don't like him. He also has a lot of energy and time. This has worked to his disadvantage here on the English project, but has worked very much to our benefit on Commons. We have a lot of work there that requires admin capabilities, involving deletion and protection of images and other media.

Furthermore, if he ever does anything questionable, he's always been willing to bounce it off of me or any of the other administrators that participate. Sometimes he's reverted himself based on our suggestions. This is what happened with the Moby Dick page on Commons. He saw an edit to the page from that user, who has been ordered by Arbcom to stop stalking him on the English project, and immediately reacted by reverting Moby Dick's page to reflect the Sockpuppet template and protecting the page. He subsequently pointed it out to me on IRC channel, and I suggested that he might have made a bad decision doing that. He reverted himself, immediately following.

Within days, SAJordan was on Commons, persistently haranguing us about Cool Cat's abuse of admin powers. See Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat if you're interested, but it's long and involved. He persisted going over the same points, and finally exhausted the community's patience with him. I hope this helps give you some perspective. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for full disclosure, while I do not know SAJordan or Moby, I do know Cool Cat. Him and I have been in a few very heated debates in the past. Those debates are pretty much dead, but it is because of those experiences I had that have caused me such concern about him becoming an admin on Commons. I was actually a bit surprised to see Cool Cat's name come up on WP:ANI, since I haven't heard anything from or about him in a long time. I was disappointed to see that his behavior had not improved. -- Ned Scott 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (mutters under her breath)

Yes, dear. :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO

Your thoughts about the proposed desysopping should be shared on the talkpage for /Proposed decision in the Siobhan arbitration case, where the arbitrators will see them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

"since Moby has apparently not appealled the block"?

He appealed over half a day before you wrote that. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 03:09, 12 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking at the time I wrote that since I hadn't been on the site for a bit that I should probably check to make sure it was still true. I'm not completely satisfied that there wasn't a problem here, but at this point I think it's been given enough visibility. I'm done with this and I think perhaps you should be also. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toy Story wiki.

There is a very inappropriate picture replacing the poster. I am not sure how to change images, so I cannot do much other than remove the picture. I will do that for now and if you could find the person who did it and have the image changed back, everything can work out. The wiki has had other vandalism as well, so this is a page to watch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemmy12 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Fixed. I also blocked the IP address for 24 hours as it has been vandalising quite a bit lately. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles closing

Replied on my talkpage, as requested. I was away for some time. -> Mailer Diablo 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) *(2nd time) - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template you might appreciate

I whipped this up early this morning while mucking about with things.

User:Elaragirl/blackmagic --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing it so that it actually used some voodoo. Are you planning on replaced Template:Esoteric? —Doug Bell ^talk 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Add some voodoo to it if you like. I'm working (out of wikispace at the moment) on a template to analyze deletions and voting patterns. Since wikimonkeys like to tinker with shit they don't understand, I needed something stronger than Esoteric, and I use every possible opportunity to use profanity that I can, so....  :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn RfA

I have learned a lot from the RfA process. As a result, my ongoing efforts will take on a new focus. I will be attempting to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago energized to get some wikiproject space experience, I will try to spend at least an hour a day on WP:NPP, I will change my watchlist to shift the emphasis from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention, and I may make a few more changes. Hopefully, in the next 3 or 4000 edits I can get some more well rounded experience and be a better candidate. I will probably lessen my original editing, but have intentions of setting some policy on human name dabs and possibly on erotica related XfD. In fact, as an admin, I hope you read the talk pages for Playboy Online and related articles from my AfU. Do you have any advice on going about setting special policy for erotica related XfD? TonyTheTiger 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freebird... The Movie article

The article is titled "Freebird the movie". This is not only wrong due to capitalization, but the IMDb title is "Freebird... The Movie." Is it possible that the title could be changed? Lemmy12 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You can change the title by using the "move" button. The type of name change for this article is likely uncontroversial and you can just do it. For some articles, name changes should be discussed on the talk page first. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All taken care of and thanks for telling me how to do it. Lemmy12 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The best one there

I like Crockspot’s response to XP where he said Yes, I'm spinning in the opposite direction, but my spin appears to outspin your spin. People of my ilk are pesky little spinners, eh? That was good! I needed that. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people of my ilk enjoy that sort of humor.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to start a collection of quotes! I know others have. I saw where someone left a farewell message by editing 5 articles specifically in order, so that when you read the user's edit history in order from the top down, it read Get - A - Life - You – ___. Well, I’ll let you see his last 5 edits of 2004 here JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA (TeckWiz)

-

Hello Doug Bell! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD on User:Sean Canavi

Edit summary: Remove PROD: made incorrect assertion regarding last edits to page (were on Oct. 31st, not in May)--needs to go through MfD

The last edits by THE USER -- User:Sean Canavi, whose alleged status as an editor is the actual subject of this PROD tag -- WERE in May. Try again. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked to me like it was the USER making changes through an anonymous IP in October. I may be wrong, but I thought it enough to remove the PROD. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I said as much on his talk page. Calton's about as civil as I am and gets touchy when someone questions his posistion as Grand High Executioneer of God-Awfully Stupid User Pages. He reminds me of a BOFH, sometimes... --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, as you know I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)