User talk:Doc glasgow/31May06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive, talk to me at User talk:Doc glasgow

Contents 1 Thanks! 2 rfa thanks 3 Talk page edits? 4 Userboxes? 5 reply: McMaster logo 6 A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks) 7 Sockpuppetry userbox 8 Hey!! that was uncalled for 9 user unamerican et.al. 10 User admins ignoring policy 11 Frank J. Petrilli 12 Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover 13 Congratulations 14 Making an encyclopedia? 15 NEARsports.com 16 Personal Attack on Deletion Review 17 Thanks for FUP heads-up! 18 Chequers 19 Tolkien logo 20 University Logo 21 Divisive Amer/AntiAmer boxes resurrected 22 Template:User bemused 23 RAF OCU List 24 Re: Template:Tls2 25 Question about Userbox 26 Image in sig 27 Seeking some guidance on fair use-ness 28 "rm sublimminal categorisation" 29 Template:User not censored 30 Your vote on my RFA 31 Masturbation userbox 32 They're back 33 My RFA 34 Sorry 35 I am Sorry too 36 Heads up 37 What do you have against people sharing their userbox creations? 38 AfD on cock block 39 {{user varied sex}} 40 Dispute - favour? 41 Thank you 42 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt 43 template:user evolution 44 User Page Changes 45 RfA Thank You! 46 Whoa whoa whoa 47 Longest streets in London 48 Deletion of Template User LDS 49 Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace 50 My userspace 51 Template:User drug-free 52 Deletion of Template:user liberal 53 Merci beaucoup! 54 Block evader? 55 Userboxes 56 質問 57 template:user atheism 58 Template:User nuclear energy 59 Final attempt to reconcile / T2 60 previously blocked number

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for doing that template move for me. I never realised one can make a new directory inside one's user page. Thanks a heap! David P. A. Hunter 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

• Oh, can you tell me how to get two images (and thus, two captions - one per image) in a userbox (this is seen on my userpage) please? David P. A. Hunter 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Sorry, I'm afraid I don't do userboxes. Try someone who has a lot on their page. --Doc ^ask? 11:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, can you please remove the table around the userboxes on this page? I would myself but do not know how. Ta. David P. A. Hunter 11:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
      • I refer you to my reply above. Sorry. --Doc ^ask? 11:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Ignore that last message, I figured it out... David P. A. Hunter 11:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

rfa thanks

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page edits?

I can think of a few reasons why the additions to my talk pages might have been reverted, but I was curious as to why you felt it was necessary to revert the changes made to my talk page, as you didn't leave a notice or message. When you aren't busy, I'd appreciate finding out. Thanks! Captainktainer 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries; my very minor worries have been assuaged. To tell the truth, I was mostly just curious. The whole wikitruth thing has gotten rather sensitive of late. I don't think IP and his other friends at Wikipedia Review like me; they've been reposting the barnstar I left on Grace Note's talk page and having considerable lulz about it. Captainktainer 00:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Doc, I noticed that you speedy deleted some userboxes. I thought those days were over? I would take it to deletion review, but that would probably just cause more trouble. Perhaps you would be honorable enough to refer the templates there yourself? Thanks. --70.213.146.219 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If I have mistakenly speedied anyting that isn't divisive or inflammatory, I will, of course, restore it. If it is 'divisive', and has been validly speedied then it should not be reviewed. If we disagree as to whether it is divisive, then DRV would be the place to go. To which boxes are you refering? --Doc ^ask? 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An example of one such userbox is {{User varied sex}}, which is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Another is {{User autosexual}}. So is {{User Autofellatio}}. I don't remember seeing any discussion about deletion, and I don't think that speedy deletion was a justified action to take. In fact, I think that your deletion log entries for these are possibly more inflammatory than the userboxes themselves. ---Bersl2 07:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. good grief. Those do not belong in an encyclopedia - that really is not need to debate it. --Doc ^ask? 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why haven't you deleted the whole userbox system yet? Is it because if you were to do it all at one time, everybody would notice? If you think it doesn't belong, that's fine; but trying to actualize your opinions in almost-secrecy, without debate and notice, is IMO and FWIW rather dishonorable. This (mostly) isn't about the userboxes themselves; it's about the principle of the matter. ---Bersl2 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You think that, on principle, people should be able to use template space hosting boxes celebrating masterbation? --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that until the matter on how to treat userboxes is more clearly resolved, userboxes should be deleted only after a notice of deletion and a discussion, except in cases of clear incivility, of which this is not one. ---Bersl2 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt to settle this in the WP:UPP which I originated. Unfortunately it was scuppered. So we are left with the present mess.--Doc ^ask? 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I've actually done more than merely skimmed WP:UPP and supporting pages... :-x (for several reasons; I'm sure you can understand how frustration is derived from sudden disappearance, which is why one might want to consider giving notice, even if the decision cannot be ultimately changed.)

I think I'll go reconstruct it from HTML from the copy in Google's cache now. Directly onto my user page, of course. ---Bersl2 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I've skimmed through WP:UPP and strongly disagree with your idea that POV userboxes have any negative impact. On top of this, all boxes are somehow expressing a POV, e.g. "This user is 30": this clearly states that the user has the point of view of a 30 year old. The fact that I do have a point of view will never prevent me from writing an article that will strictly follow WP:NPOV. Lgriot 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, actualy it is not my idea, but that of Jimbo Wales himself, who has said that POV boxes should not be used nor created. Having a POV is something we need to lay to one side to edit neutrally. Arguably, humbly admiting a bias on your userpage, might help that end: e.g. 'Hey I'm a muslim/Christian and a bit right/left wing - please let me know if that is interfering with my editing'. That would be OK - but uniformed bumperstickers that proudly proclaim allegience to a certain bias, and group wikipedians with fellow partisans, are not he way to go. That encourages us not to think of ourselves as advocates of a POV, rather than writers of a neutral enyclopedia. Your 'I am 30' comparison is, frankly, facile - and in any case, why do we need a userbox for that. --Doc ^ask? 16:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, why would anyone need a user box for their age? You may want to ask this guy: User: Jimbo Wales/Userboxes

Lgriot 16:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hate it when people ignore all the substantive parts of a post, and grab on to one little thing. I've no problem with an age userbox - although you will notice that Jimbo keeps his boxes in his userspace, and not in the general template space. --Doc ^ask? 16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore it, I actually properly thought about it and realised I completely understand your view (even if I'm still pondering whether the usefulness of the POV boxes does not overcome the possible creation of opinion groups that will defend a POV in the articles). I just thought it was funny to point that little inconsistency. Sorry for not having bothered to say thanks for the explanation, and for not having used a smiley on my post. Lgriot 17:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the rationale behind getting rid of POV userboxes, but it's a little off-putting to see you deleting userboxes for those who don't use drugs yet allowing ones for people who imply they use drugs. When you only get rid of one side, you're exacerbating the problem. --Easytoremember 08:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

reply: McMaster logo

WTF is with your attitude. Just because you are an admin doesn't give you the right to threaten me. I also DID NOT as you claimed, reverted "admin action on several occasions". The first occasion I did out of instinct but I did speak with Durin about the issue. Have you bothered to even review it? I think you have trouble interpretating "reverting" and trying to solve the problem. I do not revert something for no reason and certainly not a vandal. The "fair use" criteria is also contradictory because if one would change the licence to NOT fairuse, it wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia articles but alright on userboxes. YCCHAN 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you - I warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to breach copyright policies. Admins have been instructed to block users who endanger copyright after fair warning, so it was only fair to warn you. It looks to me like you did revert admin action - Durin and I have both removed this image - and twice now you have reinserted a non-free image. Perhaps you have spoken with Durin, but you left no note on the talk page or in your edit summary to that effect, and you reverted my last removal with the edit summary '(fixed)'. That's a simple revert without discussion - bad in any event. --Doc ^ask? 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In my book, a warning is the same as a threat. Regardless, I think the issue is between Durin and I because he first reverted the page and I proceeded to post a discussion on his talk page. At least there is effort to solve the problem without someone else interferring. Talking about bad moral, you should at least reply on my talk page rather than assume I will wikistalk your page. YCCHAN 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy. Would you rather admins blocked without warning then? If you put non-copyfree images into templates, any user may remove them, and any admin may warn then block. You want to discuss options with Durin? Fine. I have the highest regard for Durnin's abilities. But in the meantime don't breach copyright policies. As for me posting here rather than your talkpage, that is actually both my notmal practice, and also standard for most users, so I have no idea what your problem is. --Doc ^ask? 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My problem is your attitude. If you were to "warn" someone use a lighter tone. I don't think anyone would be pleased to read your condescending tone. Whether replying only on your talk page is your normal practice then fine, but I don't work that way. I feel its courteous to reply on the person's talk page. Nevertheless, this would be my last discussion with you on this issue. Reading this is wasting my time. YCCHAN 20:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Just don't do it again. --Doc ^ask? 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Doc glasgow/31May06, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry userbox

WP:AGF! I made that userbox in support for the use of sockpuppets according to policy (the use of socks to protect a username, for example) as the category description says. But if it may promote "illegal sockpuppets", I'd rather have it taken down as it is.

After reviewing the policy, I just realized the term "sockpuppetry" means the illegal use sock accounts, where I originally thought it meant using more than one account at Wikipedia. With the {{User Sock Puppet}} and {{User Puppet Master}} userboxes, I'm concerned about their use. Should they be reworded, or is it okay if I delete them as well. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 00:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit busy just now. Can I get back to you later? Sorry. And yes, you are right, I should have assumed better faith. Again sorry. Let's discuss this. --Doc ^ask? 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the policy definition of sockpuppetry that you refer to, I think I'd say go ahead and delete the other boxes. I can see that they serve any useful purpose anyway. --Doc ^ask? 11:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey!! that was uncalled for

I was busy editing the Template:CharacterStats to get a feel of how the Qif template works, and you just deleted it! Come on, you surely must have seen that I had made some repeated edits there, working up to a decent working model.

I'm not asking for a reinstatement, but can you at least put the wikicode up on my talk page? User_talk:DavidMcKenzie

Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to play with code for a D&D game. Why don't you download the wiki software (it's free) and do this stuff on your own harddisk or webspace and not on the wikimedia servers. --Doc ^ask? 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is an encyclopedia, but one that should follow its own rules - especially ones on deletion: I quote from the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion page:

Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved
 or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, 
*so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation*. 
Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; 
*it would also be considerate to notify the original author* — remember, everyone was new once.

You just deleted 3 hours of my time without a warning or anything, that's the thing that most upset me.

The reason that I was playing about with the wiki templates was to try and investigate how ParserFunctions were working within templates. I have set up my own wiki to test this, but the functions were not working there, and I was testing if it worked on the wiki to see if I was doing anything silly. As it turns out I still don't know if it works or not. DavidMcKenzie 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realise what you are doing? Abusing wikipedia's resources for something totally unrelated to an encyclopedia, and then trying to quote 'rules' to protect your abuse of purpose. Well, these processes you call rules, and there to protect encyclopedic content from arbitrary removal and nothing more. Our over-arching purposes (including WP:NOT) take precedence over all other process. Try taking your process complaint to WP:DRV and see how far you get. As a gesture of good-faith, I will e-mail the code to you, but please consider what wikipedia is for, before misusing facilities or processes again.--Doc ^ask? 08:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That was all I was asking for. I wasn't setting the template up as a wiki article, I was experimenting. Using my learning curve to make wikipedia better in the future. Please try to be less hasty to judge in the future. DavidMcKenzie 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get smart. I will continue to delete things that clearly have no business here. You will need to enable your e-mail if I am to send this to you. --Doc ^ask? 08:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for emailing the wikicode to me. DavidMcKenzie 09:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The next time you decide to speedily delete something, can you leave a quick sentence on the user's talk page or the talk page of the article explaining why you've deleted it please? I'm still fairly new about here, and would appreciate some kind of feedback when something I've been working on just vanishes for (seemingly) no reason. Thanks. DavidMcKenzie 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be pretty obvious, even to someone who is new, why an administrator on an online encyclopedia would delete a posting of a character generator for a role playing game. Something are so obvious that I didn't really think they would need explained, I assumed the average person would be inteligent enough to work that out for themselves. --Doc ^ask? 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong here. I didn't expect to get the template deleted, and I would have expected to find a reason for deletion somewhere. Yes, people are inteligent, but the wiki is designes to be usable by everyone. Not everyone is as computer literate as we are.

In all seriousness, I strongly believe it would be very useful to offer a reason for deletion when the editor is acting in good faith (e.g. not vandalising). Feedback is very important if they are not to keep repeating their mistakes. DavidMcKenzie 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to state the obvious - I am afraid I tend to assume some inteligence even in those who are misusing wikipedia. And stop trying to have the last word, this is my talk page.--Doc ^ask? 07:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

user unamerican et.al.

I listed this at DRV. [1] Mike McGregor (Can) 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User admins ignoring policy

Why was this template deleted? We had at least three cFDs that concluded it was a keep. There isn't even a reference to the discussion. --Leifern 12:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted under CSD t1. But there is a debate going on at deletion review, so no point in debating it here. --Doc ^ask? 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of userboxes, but this has to be the worst case of admin overreach I have ever seen, especially after it was discussed numerous times. --Leifern 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank J. Petrilli

Hi there. I don't think being a CEO means you're notable, there are thousands, if not millions, of CEOs out there, and few of them are notable. I think there has to be some other reason why this person is a notable person. He gets 400 Google hits, but a lot seem to be corporate press releases, which again, doesn't mean he's notable. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. Also, the author hasn't presented a claim, so I don't think you are supposed to remove to db-bio tag unless he does. Am I interpreting that correctly? Awiseman 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding how CSD 7 works. We speedy bios only where there is nothing that even arguably asserts notability. CEOs may not be intrinsically notable, but it is an 'assertion of notabilty', and thus the article is unsuitable for speedy deletion. You can still either WP:PROD (deleted if no-one objects) or WP:AfD (deleted after discussion) the article, indeed I'd probably vote to delete it myself. --Doc ^ask? 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The pages are confusing, but I'll do a PROD. --Awiseman 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover

I am requesting undeletions of these templates; see my rationale on User talk:Seahen#userboxes girl/boy lover.

Replied on talk page. --Doc ^ask? 10:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

On the speedy deletion of a template that had been unsuccessfully nominated for deletion several times before. This establishes once and for all the unspoken rule here at Wikipedia that "an admin can do whatever he/she wants as long as it doesn't piss of other admins." Not to mention the staggering irony of your action to begin with - it actually takes some doing. --Leifern 11:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A very clear majority of editors (not just admins) endorsed my action in deletion review. Let's go make an encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on which vote you're talking about. This was the last in many, and the only one that went your way. As I said, ironic, isn't it. A userbox protesting admin excesses was deleted thanks to admin excesses. You were the one who made a fuss about this, not me - so as far as "making an encyclopedia" is concerned, it's hard to believe you care all that much about that. --Leifern 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Making an encyclopedia?

As per your recommendation to make an encyclopedia; you seem to spend all your time deleting stuff and quarreling about userboxes. I guess you and I have different definitions of what making an encyclopedia is. --Leifern 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's quarreling? --Doc ^ask? 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NEARsports.com

Thanks for deleting this. Don't forget Nearsports.com, which redirects to it. I think all the other redirects and spelling variants already got caught. · rodii · 17:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Deletion Review

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. BlueGoose 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF? As I recall, the attack was with a trout....? Get a grip!--Doc ^ask? 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to me. I believe now you were referring to the article creator. If this is a misunderstanding, I apologize. BlueGoose 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK.--Doc ^ask? 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for FUP heads-up!

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the FUP rules regarding the image usage on Template:User St Andrews

It's my belief that the University of St Andrews is less restrictive than the licences stipulate regarding usage of their logo. I shall speak to the Principal's office in the morning to ask them to clarify their position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M0RHI (talk • contribs).

No problem. However, there may be little point in speaking to the university, as even if they give you an appropriate permission, you would need to be able to verify it. So, short of being able to point to something on their website indicating a release, there may be nothing you can do. Perhaps you could take a photograph of a prominent landmark and use that.--Doc ^ask? 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing earlier, completely slipped my mind. The University used to have a page somewhere regarding usage, but due to high levels of fecklessness on their part, it seems to have disappeared., I'll ask them to dredge it up. I could just use the Students' Association logo, and getting authorisation from the Association would be infinitely easier (because the head of media, marketing and design is at least computer literate!) M0RHI 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Chequers

Why is it not an official residence? -- Francs2000 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the 'official residence' of the PM is Downing Street. --Doc ^ask? 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it "an" official residence of the PM though? The house certainly belongs to the government and is kept for the sole use of the Prime Minister whomsoever that may be... -- Francs2000 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a 'grace and favour' house. I suppose it depends on how we define 'official residence', I'd always thought of the official residence as being by definition singular. The monarch has a number of residences, but only one official residence (Buckingham Palace). Holyrood is the official residence in Scotland, but you'd never refer to Windsor or Sandringham as official residences. Hmmm? --Doc ^ask? 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Official residence: quite a few are listed there, including multiple residences for heads of state. -- Francs2000 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess there more than one way to look at this. I don't feel strongly, so revert my edit if you want. Thanks. --Doc ^ask? 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien logo

Why exactly does this not qualify as fair use? It is frequently printed on book covers and is a low quality copy. —Aiden 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It may well qualifyfor a 'fair use' claim, but wikipedia's policy (interpreting US fair use law) disallow fair use claims for templates and userspace (see WP:FUC. Sorry. --Doc ^ask? 07:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

University Logo

Hi. Could you inform me why you keep deleting the images in my university alumnus template? --Gokhan 08:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, logos cannot be used in templates or userspace. Please see WP:FUC for details.--Doc ^ask? 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Divisive Amer/AntiAmer boxes resurrected

Template:User anti-am and Template:User_America_fan have just been created. Didn't we just fix this? It looks like a recreation of the just-deleted templates, with slightly different wording. Some of the editors of these boxes are using the novel claim that they were created simply to support the American soccer team! Nhprman 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the anti one has already been deleted. The 'fan' one has been about for a while - and I'm not willing to speedy it at this moment. --Doc ^ask? 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for responding. - Nhprman 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User bemused

Why call me a "troll"? The userbox I created was a light-hearted comment on the bizarre controversy over userboxes. I don't think it would have offended anyone. --Chips Critic 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you (Doc) post the template code somewhere so I can see if it really was "trolling"? TheJabberwʘck 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RAF OCU List

I see that you followed up on an AFD discussion on the list of RAF OCUs and deleted it. I feel that the article was deleted for incorrect reasons. There were four votes in favour of deletion during the listing. I would have voted against it but I did not notice that this was going on until it had already been deleted.

The nominator's reason for putting it on AFD was that it was a "Non-notable list; aprox 15 entries, with all of the being redlinks." That presumably relies on the WP:NOT policy against mere collections of internal links. I would contend that the list was a structured list on a subject that, though obscure, had things with decades of history to write about. Darquis then commented that Wikipedia should not be a repository of links to articles that do not exist. That is not a valid reason for deletion where the list of links is a structured list. The next comment was from ReyBrujo who did not even provide a valid reason for supporting deletion and who simply said that those who contribute to the RAF article should be asked what it is worth. Sc147 then chimed in and said that he cannot foresee a circumstance where he would write an article about one of the OCUs and that they don't even exist any more. There are a lot of things that don't even exist any more which have large articles in Wikipedia so that is not a valid reason for deletion. As an example of what could be done with an article about one of those OCUs see No. 226 Operational Conversion Unit RAF which I wrote today.

In short I think the list did not deserve deletion and that those who supported deleting it did so for reasons which do not follow Wikipedia policy. David Newton 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I know nothing about the subject, but there was a clear and valid consensus to delete that article, and that is what I acted upon. There does not need to be a policy for deletion to occur, there simply has to be a sensible consensus on AfD. To be honest, lists of redlinks are seldom felt encyclopedic by AfD. If you want to take this further, you are entitled to list the article for a deletion review on WP:DRV - but you will probably find that my deletion will be upheld as valid in light of the debate. A more constructive approach might be to create an article Royal Air Force operational conversion units (note, not a list of...) and in the article explain what they are, and their significance - it would then be in order to add a list to the article (although I'd suggest only placing linking notation round items that have articles, or which you intend to create articles for. It is acceptable to list without linking. Please be careful that what you create is a real article with a list included, and not just the same list by another name. I hope that helps. --Doc ^ask? 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Tls2

Thanks for letting me know, but it's not really personalized; I just used my own welcome message as an example. As you can see, you've broken Wikipedia:Welcome_templates#Userspace_welcome_templates. If you want me to take out the example, that's fine, but please restore the template. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TheJabberwʘck 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding. --Doc ^ask? 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about Userbox

You recently deleted one of the user boxes that I created, and I just wanted to know why. I have made a few userboxes, but this was the only one that was deleted, and I would like to keep it up, because I'm sure a lot more people will enjoy using it as the movie comes closer to theater release. Also, can you tell me the process to ensure that it can remain up. Thanks for your time.--Nehrams2020 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nehrams2020: You can simply cut and paste the code onto your user page and encourage others to do it, too. Creating it as a template gets messy and causes problems. Nhprman 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Image in sig

I've changed it, but you didn't have to be so rude about it. Assume good faith. I've been out all day and hadn't read your message until just now. Ardenn 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! Ardenn 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I did say I thought it was probably a genuine istake. But, you see, all the signs you'd made needed to be changed - and that was a lot of work for the bloke who did it (you might like to thank User:Mackensen for his labours). I needed to empress on you not to continue to carry on like that, or you'd create more work. Sorry if it was a bit strong. --Doc ^ask? 07:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeking some guidance on fair use-ness

Hey Doc,

I made the template at Template:User_Queen's, and you removed the image I used as part of fair use guidelines. Not a problem at all, it was my own inexperience that led to the mistake. I'd like to fix the template, and I want to do it right this time. If you refer to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Canada, I see the handiwork of you and User: Durin in removing improperly used fair use images. I'm curious about why Waterloo and McGill have been left alone? I assume that is because the images they used are "user created", but I'm a little confused, as both of them are blatant cut-and-pasting/replicating of trademarked images? If I were to do something simliar with the Queen's logo (manually create an image that is visually indistiguishable, but created by myself using some graphical application), would that be ok to use in a template, or are the images used in the waterloo and mcgill templates just ones that have slipped by the vigilant eye of admins? (Gosh I must seem like the playground tattletale, I swear I'm just trying to find a way to work within wiki-guidelines). Any help/guidance you can offer would be most appreciated. Cheers. --Greenmind 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you are right, those creations are blatant copyvios - not a good example to follow.--Doc ^ask? 23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"rm sublimminal categorisation"

Are they against a policy?! --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't need to be for me to remove them - that's wiki for you. But as it happens, Jimbo has stated that they ought not to be used. --Doc ^ask? 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I woud appreciate a link to that, thanks --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[2]--Doc ^ask? 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats jimbo commenting on political userboxes, not whether religious userboxes should include a category or not! --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If political userboxes are harmful, categories are more so. They serve only to divide wikipedians by POV, when we ought to be working towards neutral writing. Arguably, declaring a bias is useful (as you may then avoid it) but grouping wikipedians into factions is dangerous. --Doc ^ask? 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User not censored

The image in this userbox was changed following discussion. If you have a problem please come and discuss it at Template talk:User not censored. Do not simply revert other people's edits. mgekelly 11:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation userbox

The deletion of {{User varied sex}} was completely unnecessary - it was tagged as a humor template, so there's no reason to complain. (Ibaranoff24 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

They're back

Any suggestion on what to do with Abbe Land? The guy is back and has figured out to use multiple IP addresses. Avogel 05:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just keep reverting. We can semi-protect for a while, but this guy is determined and will just return when it is removed. --Doc ^ask? 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK... I am working on my thesis so am around the computer a lot, but it gets difficult when he reverts to his website 15-20 times per day. I'll pursue the IP blocks, but if he really starts getting aggressive, is it bad form to ask for another semi-protect for a few days? Avogel 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, when it gets to being too much we can protect for a bit. --Doc ^ask? 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Doc glasgow/31May06,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I couldn't remember how to translude a page Mollsmolyneux 10:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Sorry too

I did not know that I was doing something wrong...Thanks for correcting me! alex2006 13:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Doc ^ask? 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

You may wish to see WP:AN#Guanaco. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've chipped in with my take on it. --Doc ^ask? 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against people sharing their userbox creations?

I made

userbox into a template, and you deleted it within about 5 minutes. Why? CMIIW 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not what template space is for - I subst onto your userpage prior to deletion. If you want to transclude it, put it in your userspace. --Doc ^ask? 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much about userspace, transclude and stuff - I don't really understand most of it. I just wanted to let anyone put this on their userpage by simply inserting {{user untidy}} instead of having to copy loads of <div style=... stuff. CMIIW 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How would that benefit the encyclopedia? --Doc ^ask? 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Less time spent on userboxes is more time spent on the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘck 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and clearly the best solution is to just immediately delete all of them en masse. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, that would achieve the opposite effect, resulting in people wasting time on the "<div style=</nowiki>... stuff" that CMIIW was talking about. TheJabberwʘck 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jabberwock, though you may burble, you are right, this was my exact point. The quicker and easier it is to set up your userpage (and this box is both amusing and useful because it means that someone is likely to explain, on the user's talk page, how to tidy userboxes), the longer people will spend on the encyclopedia itself. Also, making Wikipedia a fun and pleasant environment, with lots of colour, is the best way to attract newcomers (IMHO). CMIIW 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD on cock block

How did you come to the delete consensus? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock block (second nomination). It was a transwikied dicdef - we delete dicdefs - so the question was, could this become an article? What was the discusison saying? Most of those arguing keep did not addess the issue, making statements like 'viable term' or 'notable' - but that was not in debate and beside the point. No one indicated how a genuine article might develope from the term. Of course if someone wants to write such an article, I'd have no objections. Although the debate suggested another title might be better. --Doc ^ask? 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was addressed. At least two noted to expand it, another two noted that the term itself was viable and notable, and one even noted that a stub-sized article has to at least be a dicdef to qualify. Whether or not the term was transwikied to wiktionary, which the definition alone arguably should have been, is irrelevant when there's more to say. Now, since you've already deleted it against any consensus or reasoning outside of "it was once transwikied," it'll be harder for anyone to actually write an article because of sloppy speedying under recreated material, and since people will knee-jerk say "but it's already transwikied." Also, did you keep in mind who did the AfD? Check his contribs sometimes, it's all he does, and has had a rather expansive crusade against multiply-kept terms involving sexual practices or sexual topics. Please reconsider this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

{{user varied sex}}

Didn't catch the DRV a few weeks back. Sorry. Will (^E_@) T 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you should've put a note saying that there was a deletion review which ended as a endorse deletion. But still, what's done is done. Will (^E_@) T 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute - favour?

Hi, Doc, sorry to bother you, but you're the only admin I know. Heh. There's a bit of a dispute between myself and someone over at Talk:Calvary Chapel. This person (unidentified) keeps removing the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject template from the talk page. I've shown that there is good reason why it is part of the project, but it has been deleted twice now, and I've just restored it for the third time. If you take a gander, I'm sure you'll see the other user is out of order. I predict the same user removing it again. If you could draw a line under it by making a "pronouncement" on it, that would be welcome. (Assuming once you see it you agree with my assessment, that is.) Cheers. David L Rattigan 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: The template has been removed again by someone from a new IP address (who chimes in to agree with the "other" editor). I will search around and see if there is an official channel to report this, but if you can do anything before I do that, it would be appreciated. Cheers. David L Rattigan 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't thing it is worth edit waring over the inclusion of a project template on a talk page. It isn't about article content, so it really does not matter either way. --Doc ^ask? 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

template:user evolution

So I drew up a neat little template today to replace the deleted one at template:user evolution, one that goes out of its way to avoid T1 and provide an editing tool for the over 300 users who still link to this page, but I see that you've blocked registered users from editing the page! So here's the box. Please add it to the page.

Thanks, and have a great day! --M@rēino 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, your box still indicates a POV (pro-evolution) we are trying to avoid such things. 'Interested in Biology' or 'the origins of life' or 'the creation/evolution debate' might be more acceptable substitutes. FWIW, I deleted all pro-creationist boxes too. --Doc ^ask? 07:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this, then? IMO, saying "this user understands the origins of life" or using the word "debate" at all would indicate a very strong POV, so I'm reluctant to use those suggestions. There could be another box, "this user has studied the philosophy of creationism," and I'm sure lots of people would be able to put both on their user pages.

--M@rēino 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about just substituting them? Why does it need to be a template? --Cyde Weys 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds better. --Doc ^ask? 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly advise creating a new template at {{user evolution}} with text along the lines of "This user is interested in evolution." or "This user is interested in evolutionary biology." This is an extremely active field of knowledge, and an incredibly important one for Wikipedia. Similarly, an expertise-related template (like "This user has studied evolution.") would be no more POVed, and no less significant for Wikipedia, than, for example, "This user has studied anatomy." Is it POVed or biased to imply that anatomy exists? :) -Silence 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Changes

Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturner 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed to neutral - I'd support you, but I don't think you've gone quite far enough. --Doc ^ask? 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank You!

Thanks Doc,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. By the way, Doc, please do know: I realize that, whenever we do disagree, it means something is probably wrong with me. ;)

Whoa whoa whoa

Wait, speedy keep WP:SNOW? Why? Not only is that completely insulting and rude, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that was a good idea. Please stop. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You bastard! You snowballed the snowball MFD! ;-) Kim Bruning 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As if that's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest streets in London

Well hello. I noticed the above article had suddenly gone missing and thougt, someone must have sneaked it back onto AFD. But no, seems it was the same AFD discussion of February, which was decided as no consensus for deletion. But here it is, suddenly, gone. Woops! ??? Sandpiper 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London (2nd nomination) currently on DRV. --Doc ^ask? 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, 5 keep and 7 deletes is a consensus then. Second time I have looked up a deleted article, followed the link and found I was looking at the wrong deletion discussion when something is being repeatedly AFD'ed. Sandpiper 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And DRV is something to do with North Vietnam, according to wiki.Sandpiper

Deletion of Template User LDS

Hey, I was just wondering why you just deleted the {{User LDS}} template. A recent TFD discussion on this entire page supported keeping religion-based userboxes. Hathawayc 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadly thing a TfD for a whole section means every individual one should be kept. This was deleted under WP:CSD t2, which has developed since then. A simmilar deletion of a 'Scientology' box was recently endorsed by DRVU. --Doc ^ask? 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And as you probably know T2 is not stable and contested. Maybe could ease off on the userbox issues for a bit, there is too much heat and pressure in that discussion already... I know you firmly believe in what you do, and I don't even need to assume good faith, since I'm sure you act in best faith, but the last thing we all want to see is this issue escalating even further.84.145.234.98 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This template should be undeleted even if T2 is accepted "law of the land", if only so that it can be rewritten to state "This user is interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Its name doesn't even have to be changed, since "user LDS" doesn't imply whether the contents refer to belief or to interest. -Silence 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

Since you've voted on the last AfD which resulted in DELETE, you might be interested, that the article is still here and I've created another AfD for it. Raphael1 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My userspace

Why did you delete a template out of my userspace? --Userboxuser (User:GeorgeMoney's sockpuppet) 06:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User drug-free

Even if you accept T2 (which you shouldn't, as it's horribly stupid), that template does not fall under its criteria. Stating that one does not use drugs is not stating a "belief"; it's simply stating a fact about oneself, just like stating that one is six feet tall and likes M&Ms. Kurt Weber 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:user liberal

I would like to know your reasons for deleting Template:user liberal. The last time I looked at the userbox I saw no reason for deletion. Therefore, I ask you to undelete it. —David618 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the request. T2 is contested and not stable. 84.145.234.98 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 has been affirmed by DRVU on numerous occassions. POV userboxes don't belong in template space. I'll post the code into your userspace if you so desire. --Doc ^ask? 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 is still unstable. I am asking you to kindly replace Template:user liberal untill consensus has been reached. —David618 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 has not bedded down - but it reflects policy as endorsed by DRVU. --Doc ^ask? 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I will bring this issue up with WP:DRV/U. —David618 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you must. But would it not be better to write the encyclopedia rather than creating userboxes?--Doc ^ask? 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To create an unbiased encylcopedia we must show our personal biases. How else can that be achieved? And if editors deny any bias how can wikipedia ever be considered valid? If you believe userboxes are a waste of time, why don't you spend more time on the encyclopedia rather than deleting useboxes? —David618 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps declaring you biases helps you to avoid them. I agree that is valid argument. If so, then humbly declare on yor userpage 'Hey, I'm left/rightwing/Christian/Muslim etc, please let me know if that bias creeps into my editing'. There is nothign to stop you doing that. However, creating identical badges for people to proudly declare their POV and share with groups of others who think alike can only undermine not enhance NPOV. Your argument does not support userboxes - quite the reverse. --Doc ^ask? 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doc, your argument does not support the deletion of userboxes quite the reverse. Get back to the articles, and leave the user templates alone. --Fudgenudger 05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No - these things are a menace. --Doc ^ask? 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you know full well that the deletion of userboxes since January 1st has wasted a greater amount of editing time than their creation by a factor of ten or more. It is patently absurd to pretend that userboxes are so harmful to the project that they demand such time and effort be invested in their removal. The menace is really in the persistence of the deletion minded administrators who can't leave well enough alone, and absolutely must have things their way, regardless of the cost to the project as a whole. --70.213.207.3 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes provide a more standard way to show personal opinions. Though wikipedia is primarily a encyclopedia, it relies on editors to create it. Userboxes can create a sense of community between users. Just leave userboxes alone. You waste time by deleting them that could otherwise be spent on better wikipedia. —David618 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Look - all the POV ones are going. Get over it. --Doc ^ask? 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 is no longer policy. I would apreciate it very much if you undeleted it now that the userbox does not fit any criteria for speedy deletion. —David618 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It still meets T1. --Cyde↔Weys 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. How is stating one's a liberal divisive or inflammatory? —David618 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you,Doc glasgow/31May06! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. Although you didn't give me a support vote, I would nevertheless like to thank you for your helpful comments and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Block evader?

FYI Doc, I am NOT a block evader. Do you have any other "indicator" that I am a block evader than that I posted without logging in and posted something you did not like? I quit contributing to wikipedia over a month ago after the whole userbox trouble began turning from bad to nasty (ignoring consensus after AfDs, speedying userboxes which had been restored trough deleting review, wheelwarring etc.). Still, this is your talk page, so if you want to delete this reply also, feel free to do so. 84.145.220.95 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Nice—David618 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

質問

私はいかにこの場所を使用するか?

-アナカリン

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article [[{{{1}}}]] for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{1}}}|deletion review]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated.

template:user atheism

Hello, I would like to ask you to stop your discrimination against non-religious users. You can do so in two ways: a) restore the template; b) treat the template:user christian, plus other religious templates, the same way. What do you say? -- 790 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All POV should be removed from Templates. --Doc ^ask? 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point... but assuming that the christians have the strongest lobby on en.WP, their templates will certainly "fall" last, if at all... and don't you think that it must seem rather scandalous for other (non-)believers, when their templates are reworded or deleted, while it is not foreseeable when those of others will follow..? --790 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd delete the lot - but we have to start where we can. Yes, it is unfortunate. --Doc ^ask? 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this POV? "This user is an atheist" is a perfectly neutral statement of fact. Grue 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So, write it on your userpage as such - and we'll all be happy. --Doc ^ask? 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User nuclear energy

Just wondering why you deleted it, since there's no reason listed in the page history. -Objectivist-C 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Final attempt to reconcile / T2

Doc, as you are certainly aware, T2 does not have consensus in the community and is not policy. Yet you keep on speedy-deleting userbox templates on the ground of T2. You must be aware that you act without or against community consensus and policy and by speedy-deleting those templates out of process are possibly even abusing you administrative powers. Please cease doing so. Yours Faithfully CharonX 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy reflects practice, it does not dictate it; practice has been endorsed numerous times by DRV. Policy pages should be updated to reflect this - but in the meantime I'll cite T1 if that keeps you happy. --Doc ^ask? 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to pick my battles, Doc. Have fun in the template namespace. CharonX 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

previously blocked number

I am not active enough to know what to do about these things, but since I noticed that you had blocked this IP from April 24th to May 24th, I thought you might be the person to have a look at the recent activites of this IP at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=141.150.154.243 DanielDemaret 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)