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

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Groan. How predictable.--Doc^g 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And you think that'll help?--Doc^g 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask Guy. And ArbCom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom made you do it?? No.--Doc^g 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It was rejected as premature due to the lack of an RfC. That's why we're there. Thanks for the completely stupid "Jeff-o-pedia" comment, BTW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is shorthand for the fact that what you want wikipedia to be is not what it is, not what it has ever been, and not what most people ever want it to be. Nothing personal, but you have made yourself the living symbol for a wiki-philosophy, and one that (I think - although I know you disagree in good-faith) is antithetical to what wikipedia is and should be. My smart-arsed remark is not intended as a personal attack, just a sound-bite shorthand for what I see as the underlying issue. Details are details - and they will change with each test case - but the underlying philosophical gulf remains.--Doc^g 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious how close the myth is to the reality. It seems like that divide gets wider and wider. I don't appreciate the commentary as a whole, but I still appreciate you generally giving me a fair shake, and I wonder if the gap that remains is based in a realistic perception sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think perhaps you might want to re-factor your response to make it less personal. Making this an issue of Jeff's beliefs would be highly mistaken, if only because that would serve to personalize the disagreement into a personal fight. Mister.Manticore 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tucker Max Page Edits

I am editing the page to the correct info, Tucker Max is a fictional character created by James Carter, please do not undo correct info as the whole created persona is merely a marketing angle.

Then reference your claim with a source.--Doc^g 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

System Shock edit warring

The edit war you participated in on the System Shock article has caused the page to be protected. See Talk:System Shock#Spoiler warnings for discussion. JimmyBlackwing 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted.--Doc^g 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

extraterrestrial encounter therapy

Hey Doc just wondering why EET was deleted? Cant find out the reason and I'm pretty new to this so please let me know. Thanks mate.

It was as a result of the debate on the issue.--Doc^g 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

James Eugene Ewing deletion

I must object to your sudden deletion of the article on St. Matthew's Churches and its founder, James Eugene Ewing. I know about WP:BLP and I contend that the information in the article was based on verifiable reports. The links were to published newspaper articles, including information from the Better Business Bureau. If you feel the article was unverified, then I would suggest you submit it for WP:AFD. As it is, I am going to have to contest the deletion. --Modemac 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am always happy to review a deletion on request. Sometimes I make mistakes. However, I view you taking this immediately to DRV before I'd had any opportunity to review and respond to be inappropriate.--Doc^g 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding Nemo

Hi there! I spotted the motto at the top of your page, but it appears to be missing a little red fish? "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" - "None Me WithImpunity Provokes". Order of the Garter if I'm not mistaken; isn't that what you meant or is this some joke I'm missing? Userus:Radians. 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of the thistle actually, but you are right. It should have been "nemo me impune lacessit". I'll put nemo back - he got left out at some point.--Doc^g 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BadlyDrawnJeff RFAR

Hi there, I'm just curious what outcome you are hoping for from the RFA. Jeff certainly isn't going to simply take advice from the ArbCom to cool it so, any meaningful outcome is going to require sanctions. Given how much good work that he does, does the level of aggrevation that he represents really justify this? I'm all for deleting crud from the system and I think you are absolutely right about that crappy article but we really do need an articulate advocate for inclusion. Jeff does an excellent (if over enthusiastic at times) job of this and I fear that we could end up driving Jeff away if we are not careful. Best --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I want him to drop the issue. That's all.--Doc^g 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think taking him to arbcom is necessarily going to have that effect but thanks for such a quick reply. Consider the matter dropped. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You want me to drop the issue on your terms, you mean. you know I'm willing to drop the issue, but not just because someone tells me to. what's your real rationale? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This has to stop.--Doc^g 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does. So have at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Put it this way, Jeff. Doc, and you, and I, and twenty-two other Wikipedians endorsed a statement by BigDT that said simply: This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life.

So, let's move on. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Jeff, if you are willing to move on and forget this article and all the surrounding debates. I am willing to drop the case.--Doc^g 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't throw a person into a pit and say "I won't fill this with water if you give me what I want." You undelete it and run and AfD, and I don't pursue it further when it's done. No DRV of the result, no further ArbCom cases, I forget about the wheel warring and let the further abuses and incivility slide. I won't comment on a DRV is someone else brings it up, either, as a compromise and a further show of good faith. This way, I get the hearing you won't offer, and I drop it when it's done whether it goes my way or not. Are you willing to do that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No. We've done this. We are an encyclopedia - this is invalid content. It had its shot on AfD (longer than most) - three separate admins closed it as delete. We're done. Actually, if it hadn't been for Xolos' ridiculous overturning, we'd have been done sooner. This has to stop somewhere. It stops here. --Doc^g 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your choice, then. By the way, if you don't like our content guidelines and policies, work to change them. I'm perfectly able to stay within the lines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Written policy will catch up with us eventually. But common sense can't always be written down. Writing follows practice and not the reverse. I've been arguing for a much tougher re-write of BLP, and most people agree with the intended effect, but when we try to find the words we realise that if we depend on words the words will always exclude things that we agree obviously should be kept. We'll get new words, eventually. But by then we'll have moved on.--Doc^g 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is not common, that's why it can't be written down. Sometime you might realize that an even tougher version of BLP still wouldn't protect against articles like this one, though - there's no violation here unless you write it to say "anything that could be perceived as negative by any certain society as negative is removed." This is when the OTRS thing works against you, really - you're assuming the worst of everything without looking at it objectively. You're normally good about being careful about it, but this is beyond unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You and I are not going to agree here. We couldn't even agree on how to cope with the disagreement. That's why arbitration is finally needed. It's a shame they are unlikely to take it. My sense is, and this isn't a put down, that we should probably leave this conversation at that - otherwise one of us is likely to get angry in frustration. We disagree. That's that.--Doc^g 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well. My offer still stands, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 'offer' is that I wheel war and undelete the article. I couldn't do that, even if I wanted to.--Doc^g 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that you have a choice. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I need to be concerned about anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you probably should be looking carefully at the points made in that RFC, by some very experienced and pretty sane Wikipedians. I'd say your choices are extremely limited. Time to drop it. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked

Does this block [2] seem very fair to you, bearing in mind Vintagekits has put up with Kittybrewster and his friends referring to them as members of God knows what organizations over the last few weeks. He should not have called Kittybrewter's pages lies - but who has not had their patience strongly tested by that crew over the last few days. That Kittybrewster can email [3] an admin and then have a Vintagekits blocked on the strength of it - is very worrying. Giano 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like the first block was an admin going "OMG personal attack". Given the blockee has a previous history, I have some sympathy with the attitude. However, in the case in point, it appears the admin hadn't really looked at the context, which is not good. So I'd say a poor call, but not outrageous. The re-blocking, on the other hand, is bang out of line. Even if the unblocking was unreasonable (and it wasn't), you don't re-instate your own block. You go to ANI and ask admins to discuss it. Very bad. Almost as bad as the incompetent decision to block Jeff - but don't get me started on that. --Doc^g 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hold my hand up - I should have posted on the blocking admin's talk page, but he had been offline for several hours and I clean forgot. That will teach me to dip my toes into the muddy waters of proper adminning. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is even worse is that the blocking (and reblocking) admin knew there was an ongoing discussion, and still reblocked, posting that he'd done so in the thread - this despite no support for the original block, even. And the Jeff case.... this is a bad, bad day. I'm deeply concerned about the increasing tendancy to be block-happy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are not the only one! Giano 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

late feedback...

I did a google on my name, restricted to the domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia to see if there were any discussions I participated in, where I missed the last word, or where someone made a complaint about me, without telling me. (I found a few of those.)

WRT [4] and [5]...

FWIW, it was not you, as the closing admin, who I felt was an over-enthusiastic deletionist, who jumped the gun. It was the wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [6] people will start to say you are one of those nasty snappy editors like that deadful Giano who is so rude to people [7]. 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 [8], 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 [9] 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)