User talk:Doc glasgow

“ here's the deal. There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story. FCYTravis 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ”

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

Block

Your block of User:62 (number) looks to me to have been premature. One pagemove does not an indefinite block make. --84.67.250.92 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolling vandalism does - create a new account and behave.--Doc^g 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

'Trolling vandalism'? What do you mean? Where? The guy just looked like a contributor who liked to mess about to me, not a dedicated vandal. --84.67.250.92 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Evie Greene

That can't be a negative can it? Unless she was black with white hair (in which case she has no problem with notability). Also I wouldn't be sure that's public domain, the photographer could still be alive and the NPG claims the sweat of their brow makes it their copyright anyway. Yomangani^talk 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Galleries always falsely claim copyright - and the chance of a professional photographer being alive 92 years after the photograph was taken are virtually non-existent. Hm, as to the 'negative' - check the source and see oif you can find a better description.--Doc^g 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It says "whole-plate glass negative". I have no idea what that means.

And "Artist: Bassano (floruit 1850s-1979)" - gosh! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant he could still have been alive 70 years ago (which apparently he was). I assume the picture is a positive taken from the negative in their collection. Yomangani^talk 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bassano & Vandyke Studios, London were stll photographing "girls in pearls" for County Life Magazine well into the 1970s - just one of the useless things I happen to know. Giano 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See Bassano and Alexander Bassano. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Em, Ok, to be on the safe-side I'll replace it. There are plenty more out there.--Doc^g 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm informed that "photographs taken in the UK prior to 1957 had copyright expire 50 years after being taken"--Doc^g 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This work appears to have been published under the corporate name; under UK law that means the work is treated as if the author had died prior to publication. That gives it 70 years from the date of publication, which would put expiration in 1985 (assuming it was published in 1915, which may not be true). Given a reasonable set of assumptions, the image is public domain. One can concoct all sorts of scenarios in which it is not, but most of those require making improbable assumptions, and one is generally not required to do that. I'm going to (in my role as a Commons admin) call this one presumptively public domain, and recommend that it not be deleted unless someone provides positive evidence that it is not. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

She died in 1917, so it must date to some time before then; on that basis, we ought to be OK from 1987 anyway. We probably ought to crop the ©NPG though. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't alter your tone [2] people will start to say you are one of those nasty snappy editors like that deadful Giano who is so rude to people [3]. Giano 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dacre

Was the deletion and recreation really merited? There was some unsourced contentious material that had already been removed - by reverting it to a much earlier stub, you seem to have undone a reasonable amount of expansion and copyediting of his career section (although I can't check how much). --McGeddon 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There were any number of BLP violations in the current text - and the history was full of libels. It seemed the easiest thing to do. If I'd removed all the BLP violations you would have been left with little more than you currently have. There are other reasons for my actions, which I can't really go into.--Doc^g 10:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay - I can't remember what exactly the expanded career section said, but if it was sneakily libellous, that's fair enough. And you seem to be helping out getting the article recategorised and copyedited. Thanks. --McGeddon 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapman University

On the Chapman University page, you removed an unreferenced assertion that the DOE had found Chapman in violation of FERPA back in 2002. As you will see from the discussion page, I am attempting to remain neutral and wiki-proper. I have been contacted by someone who claims to have a copy of a redacted letter sent by the DOE to Chapman indicating that they were indeed in violation of FERPA back in 2002. My concern is that the redactions eliminate most of the identifying characteristics of the involved school. The letter, however, does indicate the date and the name of the addressee, "Dr. Doti." Jim Doti is the President of Chapman and has been since well before this alleged violation.

Do you think that a source document like this would be valid, enough to suffice as a cite?

Also, do you think that this "FERPA" section even deserves inclusion in a school's article at all?

-Blackberrylaw

A claim of a redacted letter is certainly NOT a reliable source. I'm not getting involved in the subject, all I did was to remove an uncited assertions. If you think more needs excluded, you are free to use your own judgement. The section may well not belong in the article at all. If disputes arise, then discuss it with others. I'm afraid I know nothing about the subject.--Doc^g 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I agree that a 'claim' of such a letter wouldn't be reliable at all - but what about the actual letter itself? BlackberryLaw 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS - letters generally constitute original reseach--Doc^g 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

you might be interested in reading the above. regards--Vintagekits 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done. I see no consensus there. So?--Doc^g 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So? So what? I dunno - I was just pointing you in the direction of it!--Vintagekits 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User comments

Domt remove other user comments and dont call me atroll when I am making valuable comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will call you a troll when you are trolling. Knock it off.--Doc^g 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. How can you accuse me of trolling? Hipocrite doesnt have a right to out other users, IMO, and I have the right to seek admin advice re this especially as it is such a controversial issue right now, SqueakBox 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Read him again. He's being sarcastic. You are the one defending WR.--Doc^g 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Was he? I'm the one giving out personal info, and I have never defended the outing of individuals on WR or elsewhere. That I defend the right to link to non attacking pages on WR is surely my right, SqueakBox 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But don't then go being a drama-queen on ANI. Stop it.--Doc^g 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That was days ago and I thought it was resolved, SqueakBox 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a BLP vio

Can you point me to the part of WP:BLP that indicates that they are? Viridae^Talk 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported my actions (and yours) to arbcom, and invited them to consider them.--Doc^g 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Am aware of that. Can you point me to the part of BLP policy that says that these are violations. I will be happy to keep it deleted if there is clear volation but I don't believe that exists, meaning you took unilateral action outside of policy which considering the current events is incredibly disruptive. Viridae^Talk 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip. You are still process wonking. They are biographies of living people - they report only a negative incident. To see hy that's unsuitable for wikipedia, read what a dozen people have said on the DRV. If you still don't get it, I'll see you at arbcom.--Doc^g 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The negative incident is not any reflection on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. And I am aware of the DRV, having participated in it. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You closed a DRV in which you had participated?--Doc^g 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had stopped to read the close reason, you would see why. Viridae^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. But the reason was invalid. The deleting admin does not get a final say when many others have called for the articles to remain deleted. In any case, DRV does not trump BLP. And if you believe that the DRV reversed an A7. Then just consider that I redeleted per WP:BLP - which is a separate reason. If you don't like it - then file an RfC. DRV cannot undo a BLP deletion.--Doc^g 01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot (accurately) cite why this IS a BLP violation. DRV is about deletion policy (not article content) so notability arguments do not hold weight. The deleting admin agreed she had mistakenly violated policy and hence asked me to perform the afd listing. I did that on procedural grounds. On the subject of BLP. The article IS Sourced, it is NOT overly critical of anyone involved - in fact it is not critical at all and as such is not a BLP violation - stop bending the rules for your own agenda, without behaviour like that this ongoing mess would never have happened, yet you insist on adding fuel to the fire. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored your DRV close - I should not have reverted that, it was a misjudgement. However, I judge these articles to be a violation of WP:BLP and have deleted them as such. If you wish to dispute my judgement, then methods are open to you.--Doc^g 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"The methods" will be taken when I have time. Viridae^Talk 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the DRV close is now invalid if the articles are to remain deleted. Please re-open it or at least change the close to reflect your actions. The way, the truth, and the light 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the close is valid, I think. It overturned an A7 speedy. I have deleted on the seperate grounds of WP:BLP - if yo wish to dispute that, then please go to dispute resolution--Doc^g 02:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were just going to delete them on BLP grounds why let the DRV run in the first place? Why not just close that on the same grounds. Viridae^Talk 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the articles were deleted I didn't see the point. I never imagined they'd be undeleted.--Doc^g 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are willing to let process run only if it is going to get the result you want...? Viridae^Talk 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Naturally, process matters less that product. Anyway, I'm off to bed.--Doc^g 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the DRV looked (in your opinion) that it was going to undelete the article would you have closed it ie if it wasn't going to get the result you wanted would you have still let it run? You cannot dismiss process out of hand - its exactly that that caused this mess. Viridae^Talk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on process. You closed the DRV on your interpretation of some aspect of process that I don't understand and probably wouldn't agree with. I deleted the articles on my interpretation of policy - that you evidently don't agree with. We disagree. Either drop it or take it to dispute resolution.--Doc^g 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you prefer first? RfC or should we just assume it'll go nowhere and open a new ArbCom case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your move I believe. I suspect an RfC will go as badly for you as the last one did. I do quite well in them normally.--Doc^g 02:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I think the RfC with me went exactly as expected. It showed no consensus for the madness you promote, as well as demonstrating that heavy-handed disruptiveness doesn't sit well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think it showed people are on the whole more concerned with the encyclopedia being what it can be than silly notions of process. Look, these article are dead. The battle is over. You want another round, then bring it on. But you will lose.--Doc^g 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. The articles are only dead because you have to be continually disruptivwe to make it so. You have no argument, so you resort to disruption. That's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this. As I've said, if you have so little empathy that you can't even see that there's an argument on the other side, then there is no point in me talking to you.--Doc^g 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary - I see the other side, I just don't see how it's relevant to act as if your ethical standard trumps anyone else. We're an encyclopedia, Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Go away, please. I wish to talk with you no longer. Stay off my talk page.--Doc^g 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that consensus built. You have to realize that if everyone's challenging you, you just might be wrong and you ought to give process a chance. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, including the ones based on WP:BLP. Those are narrow for a reason. Your actions are not supported by any policy or guideline and it is not "process wonkery" to point out that fact. AfD is where consensus to delete articles is measured. DRV is there to gauge correctness of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only speediable BLP violations fall into G10 - which only applies to articles not supported by their sources. The fact that you don't like what this article said, even though it was all true and supported, is not a speedy criterion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting a quote doesn't excuse why an article must be deleted now, rather than in a week or two after process has run its course. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you scared to let an AfD run? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Naughty boy. Try asking a question that addresses the serious and overriding policy issues rather than taunting and trying to frame the debate. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I see that you have merged the articles about Kimberly Mays and Switched at Birth and removed the information I had included about her later life. I don't entirely agree with your judgment here, but I'm willing to let it stand. However, please restore the citation I had included citing the CNN article. This is necessary for the article to remain as it is. Uncited material cannot stand. However, I do like what you did with the Baby Jessica case article and the Elizabeth Morgan Act articles. If I had thought about it, this is probably the way I would have chosen to write them in the first place. --Bookworm857158367 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not aware what citation you mean. Feel free to restore it. Basically, what I'm trying to do is not have biographies when all be have is an incident in someone's early life. Record the incident if it is notabile - but not as a bio.--Doc^g 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Collective authorship?

Your valuable insight on this would be greatly appreciated. TIA, --Irpen 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume he's talking about Doc's use of a page in his namespace to prepare his arbitration request on Badlydrawnjeff. He was not alone in his concern about that editor and invited others to review and edit it. I certainly did edit it at least once, and others may have done. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

messages from the real world

Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about this. Like, they use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.

And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be notable, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.

They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.

I mean, I don't know if we can give you a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to. - David Gerard 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it come in that we can't go through process or modify articles to be under the name of the notable incident, they must be speedied with no recourse? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because people are too thick to realise that deleting the history is part of process because old version links get spread around as "the article in Wikipedia". That's why the history needs to be zapped as well, and editors start again from scratch - David Gerard 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't stop "stub, protect, discuss" occuring in the case of blatant violations - in fact, given the notable nature of at least one of the recent deletions, that would have been the best way of dealing with it. Its certainly the way OFFICE dealt with things on a regular basis. Viridae^Talk 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Schmidt....changes.....???

Hey....if you're gonna change this to a story about the case, you better be SURE that your facts are straight.... Legal issues can arise about untrue statements or incomplete stories that depict something that isn't. You have a one-sided story written from articles from people who sided with the DeBoers'.....or from a father that Anna hasn't had contact with since 2006.....crocodyle 07:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All I was doing was moving the information from a biography to an article about the case. I didn't look to carefully at whether the information was NPOV or not. Probably best if you raise concerns on the article's talk page.--Doc^g 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat MFD

Re [4], you're wrong about that, the policy actually says to take it to an MFD if contested. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we please have a flame war and argument about this that will drag on for several weeks? Um ... not? Newyorkbrad 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, someone reversed me. How irregular.--Doc^g 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

An affair in which you are interested is being discussed here. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. If others have been as polite as you and notified me, before draging me into this, it would have been nice. Much appreciated.--Doc^g 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

While I realise you were technically within your rights to change the article to a redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets, I don't feel it was entirely appropriate to do so given the contentious nature of the prior deletion discussion (shown to you by Vintagekits above). Changing to a redirect is functionally comparable to removing the content (yes I know it stays in the page history, but that isn't the point) and it seems to me that you're acting unilaterally and disregarding the lack of consensus on this issue. I have no particular opinion on or involvement in this case, other than having closed the original AfD, but I feel that consensus should be respected. A strawpoll on the future of the article might be a good idea here, to gauge consensus. Walton^Assistance! 13:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to abide by consensus. But what is really needed is proper discussion. We've had none. All we've had is people jumping up and down on the talk page shouting. I've repeatedly asked for people to explain what in the article, aside from the fact of the name of the holder of a baronetcy, is notable and encyclopedic. Those objecting to a redirection have never even attempted to answer my question. If they were willing to explain what encyclopedic information was being lost by a merge - then we could discuss whether the article should be kept undirected, or whether that information could be included on the baronet page. The afd was no consensus to delete - so that doesn't really help us. A poll is pointless - that's just numbers. I will not participate in that. Please, if you could get those resisting any change to explain their objection in terms of content rather that perceived process abuses, that yould be helpful. I for one am open to persuasion.--Doc^g 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to point out to User:Walton monarchist89 that Doc alone was not responsible for the page redirect. Those wishing to illustrate the subjects notability, with or without references, were unable to do so. The debate had been fruitless and circular for some time. Those arguing for a page redirect had not only logic on their side but also Wikipedia policy denoting notability. The page has not been deleted, and all relevant details concerning the subject are now recorded at his entry on the Arbuthnot Baronets page, where they are easily found with those of his relations - all neatly together for the ease of the researcher. The decision to move the page was the correct one, although it has been somewhat masked by the hysterical accusations from certain members of the community who fail to understand that wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia not a social register. Giano 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to get involved in the principles of this dispute - I have no personal opinion on whether baronets are notable by hereditary right. What I object to is the idea that, because no one's put forward a reason for keeping that you find persuasive, you seem willing to disregard their opinion. I still don't understand why you object to a poll; it may be "just numbers" but the numbers represent the opinions of Wikipedians in good standing, given in good faith. All such opinions should be given equal weight. Walton^Assistance! 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To address Giano's point, it's oxymoronic to talk about demonstrating notability "with or without references"; the references themselves prove notability. The primary criterion of WP:BIO is that anyone who has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" is, ipso facto, notable. But that's just my opinion, and is less important than trying to establish a consensus. Walton^Assistance! 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"All such opinions should be given equal weight". Em, no? Some opinions will be more persuasive than others. Consensus is not a vote, it is about persuasion. And it is not that I don't find their arguments persuasive - that they've repeatedly refused to offer any argument why the individual is notable beyond the title he holds. Believe me, I've asked - and I was/am willing to be persuaded.--Doc^g 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• What on earth is "oxymoronic" supposed to mean? More to the point the page was not notable, a redirect was best - all logical debate agreed. We can't all be hanging arownd in limbo for ever. You had your chance to make a point there - you did not. End of story. Giano 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxymoronic = self-contradictory, a contradiction in terms. Sorry if that inadvertently came across as uncivil, I just meant that it's self-contradictory to talk about failing to demonstrate notability "with or without references". The presence of the references, in itself, establishes notability per WP:BIO. But anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that the article should be saved. I'm just arguing that proper process should be followed, and everyone's opinion should be taken into account. Walton 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was. We debated. One side put up reasons - the other side sulked.--Doc^g 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely their reasoning in the discussion was based on two principles?

• "All baronets are notable because of their title". I don't necessarily agree with that - they should pass WP:BIO independently - but it's still a valid point of view, given in good faith.
• "This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, therefore they pass WP:BIO." I'd say that's a sound reason for keeping the article, although it depends on how strictly you interpret WP:BIO.

You say consensus is about "persuasion" but who is meant to be persuaded? I can tell you that, in closing that AfD (or any other), I was not looking to be "persuaded" either way. If I had had any kind of opinion about the article, I would have refrained from closing the AfD and left it to someone who could be neutral. I followed my usual practice; I looked at the arguments given, excluded those given in bad faith or for obviously trivial reasons (of which there weren't any that I can recall, on that particular AfD), and counted up those remaining on either side. Since there wasn't a clear majority for Delete, I closed it as No consensus. Admins have a certain amount of leeway, but IMO no admin should say "Right, the keep/delete voters were outnumbered, but they persuaded me". That's little more than authoritarianism. Walton^Assistance! 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's judgement - which is what we choose admins to exercise. Monkeys and bots can do bean counting. But anyway, that's really irrelevant - no-one is contesting that the afd was without consensus. The afd has nothign to do with it. If you have a subsutantive argument against redirection, please feel free to make it - ON THE TALK PAGE OF THE ARTICLE!--Doc^g 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the presumption should be that everyone who has had "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" can/should have an article? Blimey. I can feel my inclusionist bones turning deletionist all of a sudden. Surely we should be asking that they are, you know, notable, not that the pass the earthworm-high test of being mentioned more than a couple of times in a mainstream publication? By your test, I am notable. Believe me I am nothing of the sort. And I mean that most sincerely, folks. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what a cetain Lady is saying here [5] ALoan about you, or should I say M'Lord? Giano 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, BLP Guru...

Howdy Doc,

So, as I've considered the implications of the new stricter moral rectitude being enforced upon biographies of living people, there is one class of individuals close to my crippled heart: people like Lorenzo Odone. He happens to have been the subject of a film, but he did not choose his fate. There are those in the community of disabled people who cringe at the "soft exploitation" of poster children like Mr. Odone, whose well-meaning parents have arguably turned their child into more a "cause" than "person," to the possible detriment of the public's perceptions of disabled folks in general, at the very least. Insofar as WP's biography of Odone perpetuates the notion that he is a victim of his disease, and is nothing more (ie., he has no life outside of that identity), WP contributes to a mentality that disability right's advocates find objectionable, and very likely does a disservice to Mr. Odone, simplifying his life into a one-dimensional biography, concerned only with his disease.

In the above paragraph, I've taken a "hard-line" -- I really don't know what to do with articles about disabled folks in light of BLP. I do know that, if WP is to re-examine the role it plays in bringing unwelcome attention to people who did not choose to sacrifice their privacy, then disabled individuals are another category than will need re-imagining. No biography offends the spirit of WP:COATRACK more than Terri Schiavo. Because American politicians choose to battle over her, WP must have an article on the subject; but, there is no denying that, as a biography, the article cannot do justice to her personhood. She's famous as a body people argued over, in a societal disgrace that far transcended Wikipedia. The moral rectitude BLP requires would suggest WP no longer wishes to take part in such things -- so what do we do with her "biography" now?

I bring this to your attention because I know you're one of those hammering out the scope of BLP. I don't have the time to patrol talk-pages and raise this issue; I'm also too impassioned on disability questions to discuss them with my preferred level of detachment. I just wanted to mention the problem, to ensure that it would injected into the ongoing dialogues as necessary, and to get your thoughts, also. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we've in a moral quagmire here. But at least we now acknowledging we are in it, in rather than trying to count sources, measure Ghit and to hell with the consequences. For the most part, [{WP:V]] and WP:NPOV see as through - and if we've got shitty biographies it reflects on us than on the subject. My main beef is with subjects of very low notability, just enough interest to ensure that we can't get a consensus to delete, but not enough interest to ensure a fair, monitored article. These cases matter because we'll be the top Goggle hit on the name - indeed sometime we are hosting the only biography - and people will believe our content because "it's an encyclopedia". In the Terri Schiavo case, the moral stench is not ours, but that of the sources themselves. And I suspect, although I could be wrong, that our article may be slightly more 'objective' than whatever other partisan source a reader might encounter. Wikipedia and BLP can't really sort out the intrinsic coatrack there. The redemption of sordid humanity is unfortunately beyond us. That needs a different type of messiah from our God-King. But let me see what I can do with the other article.--Doc^g 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged. All relevant information preserved.--Doc^g 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Every time I think i'm figuring out where your line is, you do something like this. This decision in particular seems nonsensical to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What decision? Merging content? Why is that bad? We don't have the sources at the moment to write a full article - certainly not a rounded biography. I merged all the referenced material to another article which already had the same information (unreferenced). What the heck is your problem? --Doc^g 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, we do and did. I dunno why you're getting nasty here - it's a serious question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility, please... Georgewilliamherbert 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you weren't directing that at me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you ever seen an article merged into another one before? There are instructions here: Wikipedia:Merge.

The only thing we know about this fellow relates to his medical condition and the innovative treatment his parents found for it, the quest for which was turned into a film. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, don't talk to me as if I'm new here. And we know plenty, and he's highly noteworthy, and there's no problems with the article as it existed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with much of what Tony has said in the past about BLP, I have to agre with this merge it consolodiates the relevant information in the one place, and removes an article about someone whos only claim to fame is their disease and their parents handling of it. Viridae^Talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

okay. So why not merge with his parents, as an alternative? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would have been another option. Although I suspect he's more notable for his involvement with the discease that for his relations. However, the section I merged to names his parents and links to their article. So it isn't hard for someone to find all our information. But if you want to reorganise it - go ahead.--Doc^g 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting articles!

BLP is not an acceptable reason to arbitrarily go around deleting valid articles. You cannot just delete a decent article without giving any sort of notice when the article is in no way defamatory to the subject. violet/riga (t) 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Abhilasha Jeyarajah in particular has no reason for deletion. It is fully sourced and does not fall under any part of BLP or NOT as you claim. violet/riga (t) 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was on-line and you have reversed me without any type of discussion? That's unacceptable. I review all my deletions on request. But wheel warring is not ever justifiable. Please reverse yourself and then we can discuss this.--Doc^g 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not how it works. You did something I see as wrong, I reversed it to the status quo, then discussions can happen. violet/riga (t) 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Arbcom have condemned wheel waring and defined it as "reversing another admin's action without discussion". I can find the diff if you want. I repeat, please reverse yourself, and then I'll be happy to discuss this. I am quite reasonable, and always willing to think again.--Doc^g 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In your deletion summary you clearly state that articles can be recreated with sources. That has been done in those cases. In the others you have not provided a clear enough reason for deletion, removing content that has existed here in a referenced form for over two years. Wheel wars are bad, I agree, but undoing an invalid deletion (as I see it) is not wrong. I am more than willing to discuss this with you but cannot see the point in deleting the articles again. violet/riga (t) 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please undo these restorations as reasonably requested and we'll discuss where to go from there. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the buttinski, but that's a ridiculous and not useful definition of wheel warring. Bold/revert/discuss is a perfectly legitimate editing technique. Friday (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Abcom say differently [6]--Doc^g 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment at User talk:Violetriga if you haven't already. --YFB ¿ 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting here.--Doc^g 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(belatedly) Sorry, it was intended for both of you (and everyone else involved) but I didn't want to double post it for fear of being accused of spamming. --YFB ¿ 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they worded that poorly. You shouldn't generally undo admin actions lightly, but to say it's never appropriate is overstating the case. Friday (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the policy clearly states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it" - I have undone an action once and not repeated it. violet/riga (t) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with them. They have reiterated it in more than one case since. Anyway, think about it. I make mistakes, but so does any admin. One admin sees an article as a BLP violation, maybe even libelous or harmful - he deletes it. Another admin takes a differnet view. Either could be wrong. Which is better, for the potentially harmful article to be deleted or undeleted for a few hours whilst they discuss it? Obviously deletion. In this case I was on-line. If violetriga had been courteous enough to come and ask me to think again - I might have has the opportunity either to reconsider or to convince her there is a problem. If we disagreed, we could ask a third admin to take a look. If the consensus is no BLP issue - then we go through the deletion process. Much better than wheel waring. I suspect that why arbcom has been inclined to desysop wheel warriors. bold-revert-discuss is for editing not deletion - and it certainly not for BLP matters.--Doc^g 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles that have existed for over two years in their current form, which are referenced and contain no private details other than those provided in those references should not be deleted without discussion. I am willing to discuss this and even, should it happen, agree with your viewpoint, but to delete articles that people have working on without any comment at all is more discourteous than undoing a deletion before discussing it. violet/riga (t) 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You clearly didn't look at some of the articles you undeleted. There are serious referencing problems with all the articles you have undeleted. Kian_and_Remee_Hodgson where are the references for that article for instance ? Nick 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the "References" section shows two appropriate references. violet/riga (t) 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the sources are inappropriate and the article lacks referencing. Looking at these sources, it's pretty clear the article shouldn't have been created at all as there is a lack of evidence as to the notability of the subjects. Nick 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is an afd issue, and as such it should have gone there. Viridae^Talk 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Doc for replying to a third party on his talk page...

You don't agree with the article being there? Well an AFD might prove fruitful. As it is the article is referenced (I just added a third one) and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Until a consensual decision is made, of course. violet/riga (t) 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We need an article on mixed twins. A putative "biography" of this particular pair of girls is not that. I have moved and reworked the article, at Mixed twins. FCYTravis 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that clearly wasn't the way to go about it. Your way worked for more successfully. (Ie BOLD REVERT DISCUSS or just an afd). Viridae^Talk 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The phenomenon itself is clearly encyclopedic. The names, ages and family histories of every single pair of children who happen to be mixed twins are not encyclopedic in the least. FCYTravis 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I agree with that. I just don't agree with the isruptive way it was first achieved. (as I said, I like your handling - if you look at my edit history for today, you will see I have done the same thihng for another case. (Or see User talk:JzG) Viridae^Talk 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem is that we treat everything as if it somehow has to be addressed biographically. No, we don't. We don't learn anything enlightening about mixed twins by hearing that there's these mixed twins from Nottinghamshire who like Teletubbies... right now. What about 10 years from now - are we still going to say they like Teletubbies? Nonsensical, problematic to keep updated and hopelessly uninformative. Not to mention the issue of attaching these specific names to the concept of "mixed twins" for all of eternity. It's not necessary. We should tell readers what "mixed twins" are, explain the biology behind the phenomenon and note that there are many recorded cases of its occurrence. That's it. FCYTravis 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I see it the exact opposite - we have the ability to offer information on specific issues, and we should embrace that. An article on significant mixed twins by name is very helpful to readers who want to know about them - directing them to a general article on mixed twins is completely useless to the reader. And, really, and this is not a judgment on you nor is it supposed to be, assuming being attached to the concept of mixed twins as unnecessary and something to be avoided is a really bad standard to make - by disassociating, are we saying being a mixed twin is a negative thing? I don't think we're trying to say that, but our activity states otherwise. I'm convinced we are not thinking this through at all. Heads before hearts, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Heads and hearts are part of the same decision-making process, Jeff. Rationality is based on belief and feeling; cognition and affect. Decisions made without empathy are unlikely to be fully rational. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, we're offering information that there are mixed twins, that there is a specific biological reason for their existence and that there are numerous cases known. What on Earth does it tell us about mixed twins to have an article that says this particular set of mixed twins likes Teletubbies? How on Earth is it encyclopedic to say that two toddlers like Teletubbies? That was the sum total of the article - their names, their parents' names, a big block of information about the biology of mixed twins, and a quote that said "they like Teletubbies." So in 10 years, do we still say they like Teletubbies? Do we say "they used to like Teletubbies" and put that on the Internet for all eternity? For Christ's sake, that's not a biography and it doesn't belong located at these two kids' names for the rest of the history of the universe. FCYTravis 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It provides information about a certain set of mixed twins. you're not explaining why it would be good/bad/indifferent for the "history of the universe," since it already is thanks to our ability to write from sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Our mission is not to document and detail the lives of every set of mixed twins which ever existed. The fact that they liked Teletubbies as toddlers is not interesting, enlightening or of any permanent interest. It makes no contribution whatsoever to the sum total of human knowledge. Once they hit school age, it's a downright liability, in fact - I suppose you're not too old to remember the fact that schoolkids can be downright vicious. I can just imagine their schoolmates googling them, finding them on Wikipedia and going "OMG LOL U LIKE TELETUBBIES UR ON TEH WEBS LOOOL." I refuse to believe that Wikipedia should be responsible for that. If you want Jeffopedia to document the fact that two-year-old kids like Teletubbies and apples, feel free to start that project. This is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of every child ever born who happened to make the newspaper for 5 minutes. FCYTravis 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, here I am trying to have a dialogue with you, and you decide to go into the worthless "jeffopedia" nonsense again. no one's saying "document the lives of every set of mixed twins" here. as someone who went through sheer hell in high school, I understand what you're saying fine - but Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To say that Wikipedia is not an experiment in ethics is not to say that Wikipedia shouldn't have any ethics. If you believe that, Jeff, then you've lost me irrevocably. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, we're not an experiment in ethics. There's no experiment about it - we are a project whose mission is of the highest ethical calibre - the free compilation and dissemination of the sum total of human knowledge. Ethics pervades everything we do. If this project does not consider ethics, it is not worthy of existing. It is a fact that there two children named Bob and Joe Doe who are mixed race twins who live in Nottinghamshire and who like apples and Teletubbies. Please, Jeff, tell me how that's encyclopedic. Tell me what that contributes to the sum total of human knowledge. Tell me why we need that article. Don't tell me we can have the article - fine, it can be sourced. Tell me instead why people 50 years from now need to know the names of this particular set of fraternal twins and require that we forever record the fact that at the age of two, they liked apples and Teletubbies. What is the purpose of that information? (BTW, I totally feel you - I went through living hell as well, in middle school) -- FCYTravis 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it encyclopedic? It's been worthy of attention from plenty of people, that's how. And that worth doesn't disappear. Why are people 50 years from now going to need to know about Catch and Release? Either we're the sum total of human knowledge or we're not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been worthy of temporary attention for 15 minutes when it hit the news. Please document the claim that there's any sort of ongoing, lasting interest in this case. Please document what this biography will look like in 10 years - "They liked Teletubbies and apples at the age of two, but they're now in elementary school." What are we supposed to say about them? The lives of these children are not encyclopedic. (I apologize for, and have struck, the jeffopedia remark.) FCYTravis 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Second part first, I can't predict the future. First part, notability doesn't disappear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is nothing more to the article than their names, their birthday, their parents' names and the fact that they like Teletubbies and apples, then pretty clearly nobody's actually interested in their lives. FCYTravis 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop relying on the mention of the Teletubbies to justify deletion - it was only one small part of the article and should not have been there. You have created a new article that is encyclopedic (you say as much yourself) based on what existed; with the article deleted you could not have done that and we would have lost good content. I believe that we should include the names of those widely reported in the media as they add to the article and help people to understand the concept further, but little more than the names will be required. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the sum total of a putative "biographical article" is "these people exist," that's a clue that we shouldn't have a biographical article on them, but that they should be merged into something else. Without the "apples and Teletubbies" references, the sum total of the article on these two girls was that they existed. FCYTravis 08:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume therefore that you agree with what I have been saying as this is not a counter-argument against my points. violet/riga (t) 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article as it stands now is encyclopedic. It wasn't before. FCYTravis 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How many non-encyclopedic stubs have you turned into worthwhile articles? Without the previous content you could not have made this worthy article, thus proving that the wiki process works where arbitrary deletions do not. violet/riga (t) 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wiki process works only when people pay attention. The problem is that we don't pay attention to what our ~200,000+ biographies of living people say. If it takes a few speedy deletions to wake people up and begin the process of improving this area of the encyclopedia, it will have been but a small price to pay. Nobody was volunteering to clean them up before. FCYTravis 09:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a justifiable reason can be presented then fair enough but to delete articles without comment simply based on one person's view of notability is very bad. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you couldn't even be bothered asking me what my reason was, before you twaled my logs and overrode my judgement calls with your own. That's what I find so insulting.--Doc^g 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

break

(remove indent)

I'm sorry that you are insulted, but I am insulted to have two articles I created simply deleted on the whim of an editor who happens to think it's not worthwhile keeping them and does not have the courtesy to mention it anywhere. I'm just glad that I noticed it! violet/riga (t) 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agggh. Ugh. I didn't realise *you* had created them. That means not only did you wheel war with me.......but you had a conflict of interests. Yuck!--Doc^g 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - you didn't think of the people whose work you were deleting. And as I said I created two of them, if I hadn't then I probably wouldn't have noticed your deletions and been able to save several other articles. And revise your definition of "wheel war" as you are not using the correct one as detailed on the policy page - you are merely saying it to cause offence and it is not a civil approach to communications. violet/riga (t) 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm using arbcom's definition - which I've asked them to reiterate. I'm also still wondering how you are defending you conflict of interests in these cases. You should not act as an administrator in cases where you have an editorial interest. That's pretty basic.--Doc^g 09:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was undoing an act of vandalism, as I would for any article I come across. Not vandalism you say? Well I'm sorry but the removal of valid content is vandalism. And "where you have an editorial interest" applies to every single article by definition. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your recent propensity for deleting articles without discussion on wiki, is it entirely suprising people are less than happy to discuss reversing your action?. Viridae^Talk 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Double redirectsa

You didnt fix the Sir William redirects when you redirected the page, not good for our readers. I have fixed them but if you are doing this to lost of articles please remember not to neglect the double redirects, SqueakBox 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing them. Keep up the good work.--Doc^g 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)