User talk:Doc glasgow

Dj Markski page deletion

I don't understand why other Dj wiki's exist and this one is different. Why not delete the ski mix 21 then that accompanied it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinhoot (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.--Doc^g 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Johnson

Just to let you know: I removed the prod you placed on the Ruth Johnson page, while rewriting it extensively to highlight her notability and remove obvious puffery. See WP:BIO -- former members of state legislatures are per se notable. The page is no longer such a mess -- thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kestenbaum 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's what prod is for.--Doc^g 08:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNR

Hi,

My philosophy on CNRs at RfD is to stay the heck away from them. There are a few things on earth too tiny to argue over! :) I saw IG's comment -- he's a good guy, and if he really wants to discuss things, I'll be happy to, or he can take it to DRV.

Incidentally, I'm genuinely glad to see that you've taken up the bit again. You always make Wikipedia so much more fun! Best wishes, Xoloz 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Till next time, then :) --Doc^g 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Whitehouse

I would like to know the basis for removing the article ( actually more of a stub) to artist Ben Whitehouse and request that you restore it. Did you review the links to that page? This artist's new works are routinely displayed in real museums, reviewed by major mass media outlets and the major art journals, His public commissions include major hospitals, hotels, etc. This guy is major, he easily satisfies notability

The basis is that we delete articles that don't make it clear why the person is worth having an encyclopedia article about. Your article gave no evidence that he wasn't just your average painter. If you like, I'll restore the article and you can work on it a bit more, but it still may be that the subject isn't worthy of inclusion. However, if the article gives some indication that he's noteworthy, then it will not be deleted without a discussion or debate in which you can participate. Have a look at our guidelines on biographies and if you think you can make a case that this subject is notable, I will undelete the article and let you improve it.--Doc^g 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thrall Car Manufacturing Company

I think you erred at Talk:Thrall Car Manufacturing Company.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mass deleting crap and must have got careless. Now restored. Thanks.--Doc^g 15:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margret RoadKnight

You're listed as having speedily deleted Margret RoadKnight. Apart from the fact that I believe this is unjustified (800 Google hits, 9 links from within Wikipedia, lots of records etc) isn't the creator of the page supposed to be notified when something like this is proposed. I request that you recreate the page, and if someone wants to propose deletion, I'll argue it out? JQ (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was legitimately speedy deleted under criteria "A7" as lacking any assertion of notability. The article merely said she was a singer - it did not indicate she was of any note, and it gave no secondary sources at all. I'll undelete it if you want, but unless you immediately change the article to show why she is notable and to provide some evidence in secondary sources, it is likely to be promptly deleted again. You might like to take a look at the guidelines on musical notability (WP:MUSIC) to see whether you think she meets them, if you think she does, either recreate the article or ask me to undelete it - but it needs to include sourced claims of why she is worth an encyclopaedia article.--Doc^g 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do recreate it. Again, it would be helpful to notify the creator of the page rather than just deleting.JQ (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated it. Unfortunately, we get and delete thousands of articles promoting unknown artists - there's really nothing much we can do other than quickly delete them. To avoid this it is vital that every article gives a reasonable indication of why the person is notable and some sources to verify it. Your article was like thousands that simply say "x is a singer - and here's a link to their site" - we delete these without ceremony or process. That's just the way it has to be.--Doc^g 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK done now. Can you check if the claim to notability is adequate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it now claims notability, on whether it is notable, I express no view.--Doc^g 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call

Page is gone. :) FCYTravis (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meraloma

James

Any idea why deletion was recommended for the Meraloma Club as a wiki entry...

"LOCAL SPORTS CLUB" does not seem like a good reason...

Talk:Courtney Love

I understand your removal of the KC suicide dispute section on Talk:Courtney Love, but I think we should retain most of it. I think it would be appropriate just to remove most of Cobaincase's comments, and restore the rest. There were some constructive comments there IMO. Do you think that is fair? -- Reaper X 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know enough about the subject to differentiate. Feel free to replace anything that is going to be useful. But we do have to watch that talk pages don't end up full of scurrilous accusations that would never get into an article. Talk pages are publicly visible too.--Doc^g 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to pipe in and say thanks for your input on the whole thing - as you know I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I've been sticking to subjects I know. I appreciate the way you straightened things out on this page. Chickpeaface (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at it. Fortunately, it is only occasionally you will encounter unreasonable editors pushing agendas. Don't hesitate to ask for help.--Doc^g 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went and made an archive, removing some of Cobaincase's comments which I considered violating WP:BLP. Cheers. -- Reaper X 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

Hi- you just left me a message....

Is the page still not good enough? I have added theatre reviews from LA papers, internal links, external links?

I have been comparing our page to other theatre company pages in LA....can you give me some direction so that the page is not deleted? It would be greatly appreciated....

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatrewizard (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Privatemusings/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/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, although I don't intend to involve myself any further.--Doc^g 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Reformation

Where was your Scottish history template before today? There was nothing there but a small picture of knox which I moved into the body until I added the Religion in the United Kingdom Nav Box. Your edit summary was a touch rude, when my addition was clearly done in good faith. I hope to not edit across you again. -- SECisek (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appeared rude. I just couldn't see the relevance of an English focused template to the article. Actually, on reflection the Scottish history one isn't great either. A more Christian focused on is better. I've replaced it with the European reformation one now. What do you think?--Doc^g 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...all yours...the template is supposed to be British based. I guess it isn't there yet. Also, placing the term English Reformation in the body of the text gets it out of the see also section - that was my goal there.

I yanked the reformation template because it destroyed the format due to pics. I apologize as well for the cynicism of my edit summary.best. -- SECisek (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm probably being unjustifiably possessive here. I wrote the article from a stub (using an alternative account) - that tends to make one obnoxious - sorry. I think the European Reformation template is good - I'll just have to work out how to do it without messing my image formats.--Doc^g 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, as soon as I saw you were going to revert every last change down to your last version, I checked the history to see why you thought you "owned" the article. I saw the amount of work you put in. That still doesn't excuse you from breaching MoS by using See also as a "further reading" section. See also is for links that simply cannot be fit into the body but are still important. All of those links save one or two can. Aren't you an admin? No matter, I am through with the article and the U.K. Christianity template as well. I don't think very much of it, either. I ran across it today and it was almost orphaned and mostly red linked. I thought perhaps I could fix it. There was likely a reason for it being abandonded. -- SECisek (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for my attitude. I'm not that familiar with the bylaws of the MOS - I tend to go with intuition. I've always felt that key topics should be in a "see also" - as the reader who wants to go further does not necessarily want to scan the whole article to find the link to the "English Reformation". Anyway, I've restored you trimming here, as the template provides an easier link to the English reformation anyway. Templates are strange things, infoboxes used appropriately can add a lot to the article - unfortunately some are over used and not intuitive at all. You're right that British one could be improved. Although I'm not sure that navigating British Christianity as a combined topic is that useful. The reformations cannot be taken in isolation from events in European Christianity. England's reformation is probably connected with Erastus and Luther than with Knox and Calvin - whereas ecclesiologicaly (although not politically) Scotland is more influenced by Geneva than Anglicanism. Although I guess that's all a matter of opinion too. After 1606 the English-Scottish connections are much greater. Anyway, genuinely sorry for reverting rather than talking - and please do feel free to make any improvements you can. I'll not revert you again without discussion - that was bad form.--Doc^g 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I DO edit across you again, cheers. -- SECisek (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]