User talk:Doc glasgow/Jan 07

AfD

There were two other articles included in the Marc!o Mathers AfD. When you closed the AfD, you made no mention of the other two articles. What will happen with them? IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. All gone now. Thanks.--Doc^g 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey could you please leave a reason for your deletion of The Instance in the deletion log? Sfrostee

OTRS Watche

Hi - I've got a system for this set up and working fine on IRC - to get into the channel, ask Chanserv (or me) to invite you (you have access level 49). Martinp23 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Klausner

Was deleted as a page about a year ago by your good self ... curious to know why. as #1 Amazon reviewer she seems a notable person? No biggie, but would be interested. regds ElectricRay 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, a year ago. Can't recall. I'd say no assertion of notability was my reason. If you can give me one reliable mention of her as notable in a non-trivial source (excluding amazon). I'll be happy to undelete.--Doc^g 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's okay - i don't want to challenge the decision, just curious as to what it was. Cheers anyway. ElectricRay 07:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarine Harp

Your telling me that Clarine Harp, a voice actor for Funimation Entertainment and somebody who has been in hits like Fullmetal Alchemist and Speed Grapher is non-notable? Clarine has won an award from prominent anime award site animeondvd.com. She is definitely notable and i ask you to take down that horrendous obstruction from the web page.--Jack Cox 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion (I could be wrong) that she doesn't merit a mention in the encyclopedia. However, since you have objected, I'll remove the WP:PROD notice, and submit the article for a debate in which the community can decide whether it is worthy of inclusion.--Doc^g 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Scream Photos

I don't know who is re-uploading them, but I took them during the fall PS a year ago. I understand your concerns but the rights to photos remain with the photographer, not the subject. If you read the talk page you will see that there has been consensus to keep some photos, and not others. Apparently the guy with the blue cape doesn't mind his photo up there, but several girls do. I haven't ever readded pictures that the subjects objected to. I can ask whoever is reuploading them to stop if you tell me who they are, but I think you as an admin (you are an admin, right?) would have more authority.--Illuminato 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Defenders of the Christian Faith

I didn't—and don't—find much substantive and/or reliable that isn't already contained within Gerald B. Winrod, but I've restored the history and created a redirect anyway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross posted my reply. Thanks.--Doc^g 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did make such a note on the AfD, BTW. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, silly me. I saw your note, but missed the fact you'd stuck out the 'delete'. Again, thanks.--Doc^g 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon AfD

My apologies for being over-zealous in my procedural AfD nomination. Am I to assume that the correct procedure in such cases is to delete the nomination from the log file? If so, that's what I'll do in future. Tevildo 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

unless there is some obvious merit in having a deletion discussion, that's probably best. If the nom still wants a discussion, they can still afd it properly later. No harm down though. Thanks for all your cleaning up.--Doc^g 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

81.77.216.206

Doc, thank you for advising this user to stop making personal comments, but they have made allegations about a living Councillor on page 'swallows wood'

a permanant ban maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)

Doc, at the risk of becoming hysterical, I'm flat-out shocked at this close. I'd ask that you review the material provided. There's quite simply no evidence that this product amounts to anything more than something near-and-dear to the hearts of a few, yet struggles to meet the most basic of inclusion guidelines regardless of how they are stretched. If you don't want to look it over again, please do let me know and I'll whack it on deletion review. (I've re-written that last bit four times and can't seem to make it sound nicer. I put my own items up there at times, so I don't mean naything by it.) - brenneman 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can take it to DRV if you like. I won't be offended. My response will be as follows (in fact you can paste it to the DRV for me as I'm off to bed:) )

I agonised over this. And changed my mind twice. But there is no consensus to delete. It seems that the existence of the thing is verifiable. Thus the barebones of WP:V are satisfied. What isn't satisfied, is reliable sources that indicate notability. But ultimately WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines. They indicate what wikipedia tends to keep or delete. They are descriptive not prescriptive. Unlike WP:V and WP:NPOV they do not trump consensus. It may well be, that this is the type of thing wikipedia tends to delete. It may well be that keeping it is inconsistent. But, that consideration is not enough to force a deletion in the absence of consensus. Brenneman made a good case, and frustratingly, many of the keepers focused on the re-nomination rather than refuting its reasoning (bad!). But, on the other hand, I take Pschemp's point (and she did give reasons) that many of the keepers have previously given reasons. Brenneman's case for deletion is very strong, but the article does not appear to breach WP:V, and so it comes down to consensus. Brenneman has been unable to persuade a consensus of Wikipedians that the article should be deleted.--Doc^g 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You bugger. That was well said, and I shall think on it before doing anything further. I'm not going to copy/paste that into the closing but I should. Thanks for taking the time to respond. - brenneman 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say, it was close. But if you want to go to DRV I will not contest it. I'll stand on my statement and watch. But just ask yourself if you want to be arguing that WP:N is an overriding reason to delete? --Doc^g 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• (Go to sleep already, read this tomorrow.) I'm mature enough to admit I'd care a somewhat less if the "opposition" hadn't been such unrepetant pricks. But I also believe that if they had engaged in real debate rather than hystronics and charater assasination this would have been a slam-dunk delete. That's not a criticism of your close, but of the consensus. I'll resist the urge to dash off articles on the bits of software that get downloaded more than this one, I don't think Wikipedia is read for "Reaper, an OpenGL based 3D-game." ^_^
  brenneman 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I think you have managed the perfect judgment: both sides will think you are slightly unfair to them.DGG 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm no Solomon, but I'll settle for pissing off everyone ;) --Doc^g 08:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberty League International

I have provided proper reffernces with weblinks as proof and validation. What's the problem?

Weblinks at the bottom are insufficient, particularly for referencing negative material. )See WP#:CITE for how to do it). But I repeat, if you are here as a critic of the organisation determined to publicize criticism, then you should NOT be writing an article on the subject in a encyclopedia committed to neutrality. THat's not what we are for. --Doc^g 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Useful link

Hello Doc Glasgow,

I was surprised to see my contribution to the Richard Branson external links was removed. I was wondering how it may have offended. It seemed to be an appropriate link to a useful resource - useful to people interested in Richard Branson the person. Regards,Speermeister

Please read WP:EL. If you still thinkl the link is valid, then suggest it on the article's discussion page and see what other editors think.--Doc^g 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring vandalism

You are aware that we have no policy to ignore vandalism, and in fact we do the very opposite? For instance, WP:POST always highlights vandalism from the media, we have Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages and WP:CVU, as well as Wikipedia:Long term abuse? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware we have no policy. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Of course where there is a pragmatic reason to keep a report page we should. We disagree here, fine. We'll keep debating it on the deletion pages. Actually, most of the LTA pages, other than those directly useful to vandal fighters, have already been deleted per consensus.--Doc^g 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberty League International

It's interesting to see that this article has been like that for months now, and only untill recently it's now all of a sudden not accepted. It is not criticism, it's pure facts. Facts those involved in this company don't want people to know about for their own reasons. Like the fact that they were fined $115,000 by the State of Arizona and banned from doing business in South Dakota. These are facts not criticism. This is simply to give people a fair and balanced view of this company. Not everything there is negative. It's both positive and negative and all of it is factual. I'll post the information elsewhere were it cannot be modified by moderators. Delete my user account entirely while you're at it.

Considering that there are more than 1.5 million articles in Wikipedia, it does take us a while to get around to noticing the state of documentation of some of them. -- Donald Albury 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Doc^g 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft

I think that after all those villain lists being delete, that this one survived would be a tragedy. Axem Titanium 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That one looks ok to me.--Doc^g 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

Here is the disputed sentence:

A former member of the Conservative Party, he has served as a councillor for the party on Adur District Council near Brighton. [1] [2]

Can you please give me one good reason (other than that I lost my cool, for which I apologise) why this sourced material should not be included in the article? Mendoza has strong political opinions, and his past political activities are therefore relevant. User:Samuel Blanning is unable to discuss the issue, he has locked the discussion page and has deleted a valid question that I put to him. 195.92.67.74 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion already. Please go do something else.--Doc^g 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And what discussion is that? I have not yet heard an adequate argument from either of you. 217.134.104.208 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And if User:Samuel Blanning is so confident that he's in the right, why did he lock the talk page and why did he delete a valid, straight-forward question that I put to him? 217.134.104.208 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this one.--Doc^g 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ewing Irrigation

You have deleted the Ewing Irrigation page without proper research of the company. Ewing Irrigation is the 2nd largest wholesale distributor of landscape and irrigation products next to John Deere Landscaping. (http://www.irrigation.org/ibt/0108/p18.htm -- This article indicates that fact).

And in regards to not having articles published on our book, please look at these articles http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/03/news/californian/temecula/9_10_061_2_07.prt, http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/1204gr-book1206.html, among other published in trade magazines.

Ewing Irrigation pioneered the turf irrigation movement in America. Just because Ewing Irrigation is a B2B company, only exposed to industry professionals, and privately held with undisclosed, unpublished sales figures, doesn't mean the company is not notable. Reconsider deletion please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.9.131.203 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

If was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewing Irrigation. Please note, Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for you to promote your company. Try setting up a website.--Doc^g 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Puppet,

Before you want to talk to me. Please recall what your kindergarten teacher's teaching as how to figure out a "person" and a "school"

Shame on YOU

I have removed material from St. Michaels University School that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Biographical material doesn't have to be in a biography.--Doc^g 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. As for changing me, we'll see. :) Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Doc^g 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Turnip.

Turnip? turrrrnip. but...but...turnip? --InkSplotch 02:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Well, I could have spoken some profunditiy into the debate, but I realised that it would make little difference in the state of trench warfare we're in. People are seeing only what they want to see. So, I might as well just say turnip - it is quicker and has as much (or as little) effect.--Doc^g 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah...probably very wise. I do wonder if there's any end in sight. And I mean an end...not just people shutting up for awhile until someone trips on someone else's shoelace and starts the whole thing up again. It scares me. --InkSplotch 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are only two end games. We get bored with it, and go back to work. It blows up until people leave/get banned. The people that are fighting this need to be realistic. IRC isn't going away, and can't be regulated (even if it should be). Giano isn't going to be civil. Get used to both. --Doc^g 14:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - but with this full bag! -- Cat ^chi? 18:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc is in festive mode and will not be responding to shitstorms for a few hours at any rate. Good luck to the arbcom.--Doc^g 12:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

cristian fleming

I strongly advise you to take a look at this. Omotorwayo (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh?--Doc^g 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irony

It's ironic, isn't it? You said to close one MfD because is would be unhelpful and increase the drama, but then you have to chose whether to file an MfD on those talk pages. I feel as strongly as you do about this. Is there a way to restore, blank and protect? I won't do anything silly, don't worry, as the server hiccups have me worried. And what exactly are these server hiccups people are talking about? Is that like why people are told never to delete AN or ANI or the Sandbox? Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The worst scenario would be to undelete them and then have someone wheel war. I'm going to do nothing for a day or so until the immediate drama ceases, but then restoring and blanking looks good. Although, in the absence of trolling or abuse, I can't se any need for protection. People can leave messages - the user doesn't have to read them.--Doc^g 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Logs"

Doc, please see my reply on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[3] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Majorly

Despite the fact that your little edit was funny, isn't it against the rules to edit other people's userpages for fun? --Alisyn^talk 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Em, no. He can revert it if he likes, but I can edit it, yes. It's called a wiki--Doc^g 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

thx 4 thx re rating Mr Wright (of London)

Hi ... I only did a quick weight test to rate it. I wanted to make sure it was known to the bio project before it was DYKed. I have added an infobox but refrained from adding an "image wanted" as I guess you have looked as you report very sketchy bio info being available. Good luck .... painters biogs always look good ... even if they die not so rich. Victuallers (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Cold fusion

Just wanted to let you know that it looks like User:Pcarbonn did not take your exhortation seriously and decided to revert my changes without discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it seems like User:MigFP is getting in on it. I don't know why they think that reverting will help. Still no sign of discussion from them on the talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

attention...

Thanks for your caution, but im not to be personal attacks, i mean; no racializm in this site, only i want to neutrality...*** Эɱ®εč¡κ ***^{and his friend} 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk.--Doc^g 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)