User talk:Doc glasgow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tearlach (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 15 May 2007 (→‎AfDs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Doc glasgow/tidy


[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/alan_johnston.gif

Jim Lampley

Did you know that, in addition to his sportscasting duties, Lampley is an outspoken liberal commentator? That the judge was the daughter of a GOP kingpin, Gerry Parsky? Of course, domestic violence charges are a serious matter and need to be investigated thoroughly; however, the investigation show there was no evidence of the allegations in this case. Even Mr Lampley's former wife, Bree Walker publicy stated that he was not capable of the charges that Ms Sanders brought.

That the apartment the complaining party was living in was not hers, it was his....although all news accounts say it was hers.

That the DA dismissed the case and investigation due to lack of evidence.

That the only thing Lampley was guilty of was 'coming within 100 yards of his own apartment' by having a meeting with his property manager.

If you'd like to contact his attorney for the facts, his name is Thomas Warwick in San Diego. Perhaps he can provide the court papers and what the facts showed re: the no contest plea.

Mr Lampley could not factually dispute that he was technically within 100 yards of his own apartment the day he was meeting with his property manager. The investigators, on the property to interview the complaining party, noticed Mr Lampley leaving the mgr's office and arrested him at that time.

The complaining party also was driving Mr Lampley's BMW until the proceedings concluded. We live in a litigious society and anyone can charge another party with a variety of claims. Your treatment of highlighting the charges and not of the ultimate disposition is not totally fair, despite whatever take you get from the media. The print media in San Diego is definitely skewed right. The north county of San Diego is generally a very conservative climate, where the charges were brought and where the court was located. There is much more to this story than the sensational headlines.

Noted--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

Good work, Doc glasgow, thanks for blocking the IP address that was spamming the key!

Hopefully these spammers/trolls/troublemakers will move onto something else other than an encryption key... you're doing a good job stopping them!

Over on the Cornish Wiktionary, where I'm the only sysop there, I've already had to protect the page from re-creation, and list it at protected titles. One page even listed the key and John Bambenek's email address - I'm about to nuke that protect-deleted page and turn it into a protected title there.

It's getting annoying having to delete this junk, but it's a fad that will soon fade away. --SunStar Net talk 12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état

Thank you for your comments about Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état. Just to clarify : at NO time did I do a cut-and-past page move. It was an article SPLIT, not a move. Splitting longer articles into smaller ones has long been accepted on Wikipedia, and this is the first time I've heard of it being called a copyright violation. FYI, most if not all of the text I copied from one article to another was written by me personally. I realize that I should have been more careful with the edit summary, though: I should have clarified that the page was being split, not moved, as my somewhat inept rendering made it appear. I'll be more careful in future. David Cannon 12:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry if I was harsh. Splitting is fine. You just need to do it with an edit summary of "split from article x" so that anyone can trace the contributions history for the material. Sorry if I over reacted. Perhaps you could post a note to the talk page of any article you've done this with, to say where the material came from.--Docg 12:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. I've also taken the liberty of restoring Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000. I'll put a note on the talk pages of both articles to identify the source from which they were split. Over the next few days, I'll also go through the articles I've written, find any similarly unexplained splits, and fix the problem. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. You don't need to apologise for being harsh - I was the one who did a sloppy job in the first place, so it's my responsibility to take care of the problem now. David Cannon 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--Docg 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Doc glasgow. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Raban

Can you explain why you removed the quote about Jonathan Raban's failing at Salisbury Rep and returning to the University of Hull to do his PhD thesis. This was relevant and I see no reason for its deletion as it is relevant to his biography Ivankinsman 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also ask why you have removed the quote about Raban's family. If you had bothered to read any of his books (and I know you havn't otherwise you wouldn't have done this) you would see that this quote is central to much of his writing. I cannot see any rationale for its deletion so please can you reinsert it Ivankinsman 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 5#Air Force Amy

Peace, doc. All's well that ends well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, taking that to DRV was not one of my better moves anyway. Thanks.--Docg 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pft, don't be THAT hard on yourself. Kudos to you for getting the extra input rather than just acting. People could stand to learn from you. Hell, I could stand to learn from you on that note. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and NPOV

I have added some wording related to the application of NPOV to lists, and there is a vigorous debate ensuing. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#The_difficulty_with_Lists_in_WP_needs_to_be_addressed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I'll take a look--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Merge Accounts

Thanks for the help with the money merge account. Eddie Jones 02:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP --Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Username block?

I blocked the username for being promotional for Reachout trust (it was a spam username and created a now speedied article on itself). Does that clarify things? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, creating an article about your organisation isn't ground for blocking - certainly not without warning. Don't do that please.--Docg 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block for the creation for the creation of the article, I blocked for it being a promotional username, I haven't got any major issues with you unblocking it if you wish, I just haven't got the internet connection to do it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a promotional username. It is just a corporate one. Is there a policy against that? It is better that someone is honest enough to tell us the organisation they are representing. I still see no justification for blocking here. There is no basis for this.--Docg 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:U#PROMOTIONAL: That seams to justify the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But common sense doesn't. Unless a username is offensive, or it is a vandal, try talking to our users before you block them. WP:AGF and the principle of warning first is better.--Docg 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with you there, policy states that blantant infringements can be blocked on sight, this is a blatant infringement - the policy is quite clear, I would talk to the user first if I felt there was a chance the username wasn't against policy. Upon reflection, I am disapointed that you unblocked the username given that I have showed you the specific part of policy that it broke, especially with what you put in the block log, no reason to block this. ID confirmed by OTRS anyway - so what if they confirmed who they are? It's still promotional and still against WP:U. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted this on WP:AN, you may wish to comment there. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've responded. We can both see what the consensus view is. No need to fall out. Cheers.--Docg 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input, I guess it seams we were both right, sorry if you think I was being confrontational, I just felt strongly about the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion etiquette

Would it be impolite of me to ask if you are considering responding to the points I raised here and here? I don't mind if you don't, but I saw you were around and editing the AfD, so I thought I might as well ask. Carcharoth 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. Carcharoth 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Corporate censorship

No offense was intended by my closure, so I hope you did not take it the wrong way -- it is difficult to read people online at times. Ironically, I based my phrasing on an earlier discussion you closed which was under similar circumstances (although you may disagree). My feelings on the article are neutral, meaning I can see both sides of the argument, but I do feel that the rewrite by Uncle G was so drastically different that the discussion needed a rebooting so to speak. If you have any other questions please leave me a note on my talk page. RFerreira 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new afd is showing where the community is with this (unfortunately)--Docg 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bored? - want to help?

I wonder if Mrs Arbuthnot [2] knew Lady Blanche Addle, I suspect they may have been great friends - same era you see. Lady Addle incidentally had a sister Millicent, Duchess of Brisket interesting woman, I wonder if you would be inclined to help me with a collaboration on her. Giano 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth here. I downloaded the blasted thing, which is basically an early twentieth-century equivalent of a collection of Wikipedia vanity articles. it is dedicated "to M. E. A. and all the younger members of the clan, in the hope and belief that they will one day read the history of their family".....I think it's time I went looking for some obscure Jacobite to write about.--Docg 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree, I tried to download, and had to restart the computer after 20 minutes. Try and find a 2nd hand copy of "Lady Addle Remembers" though it helps to put these things into perspective. Giano 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are [3] only 50 pence too. Giano 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So have you been a masochist for long? Giano 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a dick. Gotcha now :) --Docg 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you lot think I'm too strident, perhaps sometimes I am but I did not make this edit [4] lightly. All very sad, isn't it. Giano 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick High School

I would like to protest the Deletion of the Brunswick High School Web Page... I Wrote many of the articles on it. The reason for deletion was basically that we had no sources... but it was a school page... there was nothing on it that was on the Brunswick High School Official website as that would have been redundant, and so anything that was on it was there for the first time on the internet. There are no books written about our school, there are just students that know what is going on and students that don't. Again I would like to protest the deletion of the Brunswick High School, Maine wiki article.

I would like to also point out in my argument for the un-deleting of the Brunswick High School Page that I, A student at Brunswick High, do not know who kept changing the article "Announcements" to include that. They also did not know anything about the school as they kept editing articles and giving mis-information.

The article was deleted because there was a lot of personal attacks in the history, and we'd had a complaint. However, Wikipedia only allows information that is verifiable using reliable sources. We are not a notice board. So information that isn't on the school's webpage - or available in another acce3ssable source is not allowed.--Docg 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check mail!

Me being a dick

Sorry for taking things personally regarding your comment, I've just had a real crappy day at work - should probably consider not bringing it on wiki in the future. My ego's taken a battering during my tantrum, so I think I'll spend the rest of the night nursing it back together. Hope there's no hard feelings. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, none. I find drinking whisky and staying away from keyboards is the best cure for stress.--Docg 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs, it is a poor fat kid on the internet. Could you not leave it alone and use your obvious talents to add useful content? Knock it off. This is why I hate the DRV farce - full of people who love to pick fights over saving horrible articles on total crap.--Docg 01:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you revert the edit at Pac-Man Carnival? The user just added infoboxneeded: which the article clearly needs. RobJ1981 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits by an unauthorised bot are being reverted. Articles do not NEED infoboxes. And such editorial comment should certainly not be on the article itself.--Docg 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the infobox needed tag needs to be fixed then: as they state (when placed on a talk page): This infobox needed banner is misplaced. This banner should be removed from this talk page and moved to the top of article, so that users will quickly respond and fix the page. It's been like that for a bit, and no one seemed to even notice. Personally, either way is fine for me... as I don't think it actually helps it's on the article itself much more compared to the talk. --RobJ1981 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT fine to add editorial stuff to articles with a bot.--Docg 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted my bot's edits?

It was recently decided to have the infoboxneeded tag be moved from talk pages onto the articles themselves, this was the sole purpose of my bot, which is why I'm not sure its edits were reverted. There is no easy way for me to fix this becaue you didn't add the infoboxneeded tags back to the talk page. --Android Mouse 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The bot was unauthorised (unless I'm wrong) 2) editorial comments do not go on articles - articles are for readers 3) Nothing NEEDS an infobox - that's a stylistic decision for those working on an article - no more.--Docg 02:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) It was authorized. 2) This is a recent change discussed on the WP:VP. If you are not going to revert your reverts at least go through fully with your reverts as now the tag has been completly removed since you didn't revert my bot's removal of the tag on the talk pages. --Android Mouse 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to undo the rest you can. I've been working by hand so I'm not interested in doing more than I have to. My concern was to get these off the articles. Personally, I hate them totally, so their loss from the talk page is a gain too. Nothing needs an infobox - that's a decision for those working on an article.--Docg 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way for you to that automatically? I had assumed your revisions weren't being done by hand. Regardless I'm not sure there is a consensus for them being removed completly, much less being removed from the main page. I personally think this should have been discussed before you started reverting. --Android Mouse 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block/deletion of Android Mouse Bot 2

See my response for more details --Android Mouse 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Equerry

Bryan Godfrey-Faussett - I was rather thinking of people like that Giano 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Equerry. In fact - I've done that.--Docg 14:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources, how would you know he was an equerry? This isn't my field, but a brief search shows that his diaries and papers are registered in the National Archives and there is an online biography on a Cambridge University site. Apparently the papers themselves are held in the Churchill Archives Centre. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look forward to seeing the page improved Tony - well found and good luck Giano 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I think we need to take each of these characters on a case-by-case. If they don't seem to justify an article, then redirection is better than deletion, as it allows someone to come, reverse it, and fill in the gaps at a later time.--Docg 14:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite agree, but I don't think I am brave enough to do it! Giano 14:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attic

In the light of the criticisms raised at the proposed Wikipedia:Soft deletion process, I have originally proposed a "Requests for viewing" process, which would run similarly to deletion review or articles for deletion. Then, Lambiam suggested that the articles for viewing should be placed on the subpage of the project, in which the community can improve the article. If the ideas were fused, it would compensate most (if not all) of the problems faced at Wikipedia:Soft deletion already. I'm wondering on your opinion on the matter... Sr13 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbuthnot (yet again)

I don't know if this has ever happened before, I wonder would it be not posible for a group of (say) three reputable and respected admins to be appointed to just go through this category and delete as necessary - maintain the Encyclopedia's reputation and save a lot of needless arguing and time? Giano 09:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a good idea - but you'll have 26 pages of discussions and 'OMG anti-consensus elitist cabal!' screaming knee-jerks. How many articles are we talking about? Can't we prod half of them if kittybrewster has indeed bugged off?--Docg 09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take this unreferenced one Hugh James Arbuthnott - I have just tried to give it some refs but not easy - if he was thrice an ambassador he would have been knighted and probably still alive, I just did a quick (admitedly) google and one hit as Mr Hugh Arbuthnot tried to sell me a Toshiba microwave and nearly crashed the computer, and one hit here as [5] as CMG which is a diplomatic honnour, but not easily verifiable is it? The others are kittybresters various sites. Giano 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to have been ambasador to Romania in the 1980's [6]. I suspect there's some people interested in diplomats who might have a view. I'm also looking at Felicity Arbuthnot, who despite the 'spin' looks like a nn freelance journalist.--Docg 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I looked at her and I agree with you but decided to start with the more obvious first, I have just done two more for deletion here:

I'm getting quite fast at nominating now, I had never nominated anything efore I met the Arbuthnot family. Now there is a book I would like to read! from here [7] R. Srinivasan (2005). The Fall of Arbuthnot & Co. East West Books (Madras). ISBN 81-88661-40-6. Giano 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but hold on. You normally have to do something notable to get raised to the peerage. I;m wondering about that first earl?--Docg 10:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Misead that. It just says "1st of Elderslie" - I read in earl. What does "1st of Elderslie" mean anyway?--Docg 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict: I was about to make a wisecrack pointing that out it means I could call myself Giano MZ, 1st of London cos I'm the first of the illustrious and noble MZs to live here. Giano 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Irish humour, we could have a page on you Doc [8] if that is true. Giano 10:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the correct tag for this page Arbuthnot family which only has circular referencing. I'm leaving this subject to others now (for a while at least) as I cannot believe there is no wikipedia rule to stop such rubbish appearing and making the site appear foolish. There is talk on Category talk:Arbuthnot family about renaiming the category - as it includes a road, a paddle steamer, and a schooner which even allowing for odd relations is strange. I think this is vainglorious vulgarity on the part of the primary author, as you know a lot of things on wikipedia have irritated me - this business is justy ridiculous. Giano 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now put the correct tag on the article.--Docg 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I notice you're not adding the template on the AFD page that links back to the AFD log. It needs this to work properly. I've corrected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Arbuthnot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbuthnot family. Tearlach 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea what you mean. I'm doing afd's the way I've always done them (for over 2 years) and the way my monobook is set to do them.--Docg 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the templates have been very elaborately reworked over the past couple of years. I've also ignored them on the grounds that the way I've always done it still works fine. --Tony Sidaway 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - to the extent that I didn't realise it wasn't mandatory. But doing it that way does remove a useful function: the direct link back to the entry on the AFD log. Tearlach 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&oldid=131004422"