User talk:Doc glasgow

OTRSBot?

I've noticed the User:Doc glasgow/OTRS watch page, and while in-channel notice a distinct lack of the bot. Have you heard if the idea was feasible or not, or possibly just disliked by the idlers in the channel?

If it's acceptable to the other agents, I'm tempted to just write the thing myself and host it on my ts account.

BTW, info-en and permissions queues both have backlogs, if you've got access and are bored. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been operating for some months at #wikimedia-otrs-watch ,although I've not had much to do with it lately. See [1] --Doc^g 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

Could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Jay Brannan? I'd appreciate it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered.--Doc^g 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense interaction

You already won; there is dignity in taking a break from the endless arguments on that page. Especially, since you seem overexcited, with the haphazard, fragmented copying of comments into edit summaries, and so on. That tone, that form, it just adds further tension. We need less. El_C 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Won what? I do not consider I won anything. Nor am I over-excited. Actually, I am very calm. I often cut and paste my comments into edit summaries (as do many), I consider it useful for anyone searching the history for a particular comment. However, I'm happy to re-think it, if there's a consensus that it isn't helpful. I'm not sure what the tension is that you feel. Maybe you need to unwatch for a bit? SlimVirgin made some allegations, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Maybe she should have taken the discussion elsewhere??? I'm happy to see it dropped or re-commenced elsewhere.--Doc^g 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why haven't you asked Slim to drop it too? I feel picked on :( --Doc^g 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

I am awarding you a Special barnstar for this message which summarizes perfectly the intractable situation with which ArbCom was stuck. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks. That certainly a colourful one.--Doc^g 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen bee (subculture)

Hello there. I de-prodded this article on the basis that I felt it maybe should be kept in its original form (although probably with some changes over the course of the AFD). I see that you AFDed it but then closed the AFD and changed it back to a redirect. Would you be amenable to the idea of me reverting it back and re-opening the AFD, to see if people still feel the same. Having looked at the original AFD, the redirect decision does seem slightly questionable as there were three outright keep !votes. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you open a deletion discussion to settle the question of a redirect, people may shout at you.--Doc^g 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So what should I do if I believe that the article should not be a redirect? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea, since I can't see how an article could possibly be justified. The current one is certainly trash. You could try to write something on the talk page and try to get a consensus.--Doc^g 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted it back to the article and will start working on it and trying to discuss on the talk page as you suggest. To be honest the current version seems OK to me but does need more work and sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest you reverted it back, there is currently consensus for a redirect NOT an article. I suggested you made your case for changing the consensus on the talk page.--Doc^g 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Princess Louise FAC

Just a quick note to say thanks very much for copyediting Princess Louise, It's much appreciated. It was a good idea to remove the British princesses template, and un-collapse the Ancestry template, but they were put in as standard by the WP:BROY directors (Danbarnesdavies and Morhange). I'll leave a note on the project talk page about it, and raise concerns about some browsers coping with the "hide" templates and so on. Anyway, I've left a barnstar in your awards section, but the signature isn't appearing. Best wishes and thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing of Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses. You may wish to read it to check if I've raised your concerns correctly, and/or give your own views. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured those changes might get reverted, but anyway I thought it was worth a try. The princesses' box thingy was strange, why the unexplained generations. Nice article :) --Doc^g 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, unfortunately. I've asked for the template to be edited so it makes it absolutely clear the generations are from George I. It's currently at the bottom (I missed it, though) so I've asked it to be put at the top instead. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm prejudiced here. I hate these bloody things, per my WP:UNBOX.--Doc^g 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you! The British princesses template is now a little clearer, so the generations descent is made clear at the top instead of the bottom. However I don't believe it adds anything to the article, since there's a category for princesses. PeterSymonds | talk 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a discussion here about the template, as my last act before I sleep :). I wouldn't copy your comments at WP:FAC over without your permission, so if you wish to comment there you're most welcome. It may help because the primary contributors to the BRoy talk page are the users that created the template. Anyway, I've added two alternative suggestions for users to consider, hoping that our view may be shared. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bish's page

Check the history (or checkuser). Yomangani^talk 10:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)