User talk:Doc glasgow: Difference between revisions

User:Doc glasgow/tidy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Captain Cannabis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Verne Andru 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would'nt "No Consensus" have been more appropriate? -- Avi 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc glasgow. Actually, you appear to have inadvertently made an error on that AfD. Looking through the discussion, there's a clear consensus for deletion, with a recommendation for a merge. I've entered the actual final outcome, and deleted the article. Just thought I'd let you know. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you just reverted Doc's action without discussion? --Iamunknown 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Doc, concurrent threads at Jayjg's talk page and at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc. Regarding the points you made on my Talk: page:

1. You're right, and I've apologized at Deletion Review.
2. Again, a good point.
3. For better or worse, wheel-warring is actually the repeated undoing of an administrative action; I've actually pushed hard more than once to get the definition to mean the very first undoing of an admin action was a "wheel-war", but I've never been able get any agreement on that. So based on Wikipedia's definition, the only person Wheel warring here was Gaillamh - although he could claim he wasn't wheel warring also, on a technicality: I didn't actually reverse any admin actions you took, but reversed an edit you made to a page. One does not need to be an admin to close AfDs. I took the first admin action, by deleting the page, and Gaillamh took the second admin action, when he undid that deletion.
4. Agreed, as I've said at Deletion Review.
5. Actually, no, as I've explained at Deletion Review. An interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted at 1+2 and 4. 3. You are correct - but reversing afd's without discussion isn't great. 5. Perception also matters. Anyway, thanks and case closed.--Doc^g 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States military aid to Israel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted.--Doc^g 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered why you have blanked the talk page? Frelke 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is old news, and the details are still available in the history. I can e-mail you more information if you need to know, do you?--Doc^g 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could ask a favor. A few months ago, as a new user to wikipedia, I engaged in some silliness involving a school friend of mine--Jared Lenow. I have since learned my lesson and have no plans of rehashing this behavior. The problem is that you protected a redirect page I created -- Jared Lenow -- from recreation. I can assure you that I have no interest at this point in recreating this page or a redirect from it. The problem is that this page comes up first when a google search is run for Jared's name, which angers him because he is concerned it might interfere with professional prospects. A couple months ago, I removed Jared's name from some other wikipedia silliness I was responsible for and that material no longer dominates a google search for his name. I was wondering if you would be willing to allow the Jared Lenow page to be completely deleted (that is, unprotect it from re-creation, as there is simply no need for this protection since I have changed my ways) so that it eventually wont be picked up by google. Also, I am assuming that it will be OK for me to edit this comment to remove Jared's name when you have responded so that the same google problem does not arise with this talk page. Thanks. Jaredlenowguy 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another administrator (Cbrown1023) deleted the page about a week ago. I see that it still shows up in a Google search, but that is just because Google lags behind page creation for a little while. In a few days or week the page should be gone. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I'd have been happy to help you and to delete the protected page that was showing up in google, but it has already been done. Much joy over one sinner that repenteth.--Doc^g 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly the best use of IAR ever, and well-deserved for you! :) Xoloz 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm beaten to the punch. Thanks! >Radiant< 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, oh dear ... between enabling trivial querulousness and pointless circumlocution, I guess I've really had a bad wiki-day. I thought that I was trying to help resolve a situation, but silly me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"querulousness"? Now, I'll need to look that up in a real encyclopedia ;) --Doc^g 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Mr. Gerard who used the word. Honestly, I thought I was helping. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. But by refusing to name the admin, you just made me curious. Gerard is a walking dictionary of put down lines.--Doc^g 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of editors seem to be walking dictionaries of put-down lines recently. I suppose I can handle being gratuitously put down (not by you) as a response to my trying to defuse a situation, since on balance I've been treated very gently in my months here; but there are others who may not react the same way, and I hope you can use any influence you may have with such editors to moderate the tone of some of their comments. Certain people (not yourself) should bear in mind that civility is for everyone. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but not everyone sees civility in the same way as you or me. It is a little relative. It is a lot easier to ask people to walk away from things than to enforce some sort of agreed civility line. Kelly has a reputation for being tetchy, anyone that's been around long enough to be an admin knows that. To jump into the lion's den to ask them to tone it down is just silly - you will get your head bitten off. And what are you hoping to achieve? Admins will get stick, maybe that's wrong, but if they can't take it, they will fail as admins. Moreover, if they have thin skins, and go looking for confrontation....well, then I have little sympathy. I have some (non-wikipedian) friends (yes, really) who are downright rude. I have a choice, I roll my eyes and ignore their rudeness or I give them a wide berth. Could I talk to Kelly? Yes. Will it make any difference? No. --Doc^g 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. Real96 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP discussion here. I don't think full protection is warranted. It's been purged of malicious edits, I've watchlisted it and have posted the issue on various notice boards encouraging others to watchlist it as well. I suggest unprotecting it, and if people start attacking it again to semi-protect, since it's IP addresses and new users that were doing so before. bobanny 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Please keep it watchlisted for any further BLP issues.--Doc^g 09:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to know that he's reverted it again, up to the 3rr limit, just as I was trying to correct the population figures as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected.--Doc^g 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's editing as User:Billleech he is able to edit it, and he has just done so, reverting it again, and putting himnself over the 3rr limit.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked.--Doc^g 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to impose on you again about this, but the user is avoiding his block by continuing to post comments about reporting me for vandalism in some unknown place on User talk:81.174.164.179. Could you take a look and advise? Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice? Ignore him. I am the person who dealt with the OTRS ticket, and despite careful explanations he doesn't get, or doesn't want to get Wikipedia. I'll block the IP if he becomes disruptive, but the article is semi-protected so he can't do much. Maybe he'll post to the discussion page and start working collaboratively - but I'm not holding my breath. Let me know if he causes any real problems, but right now he's just venting steam. ask him to work with you, if he refuses, ignore him.--Doc^g 11:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment about the certifications on the RfC. I know that some of the certifiers have interacted with Kelly Martin about the issues raised, though you are right that several have not. The logical corollary to your point, though, is that the RfC should be suspended while the filing parties repair to Kelly's talkpage and further discuss the issues with her and suggest that she change some of her approach. As you yourself mentioned yesterday, this is highly unlikely to be successful.

Personally, I think the RfC isn't likely to achieve anything useful and might as well be withdrawn, but if the filing parties don't want to, I fear that striking it pending further dispute resolution might actually produce more "drama" (to use an overused word lately) than just letting it wind down. Thoughts? Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But (and sorry to be a process-wonk here) we demand certification for a reason - to prevent tendentious RfCs. RfC isn't a weapon, it is supposed to be a serious attempt to resolve the dispute. I can't see that it is in this case, frankly it looks like trolling to me. Actually, there is no obvious dispute here to resolve. Some people don't like Kelly's attitude? So what? RfC is not a method for character improvement - that's bound to fail.--Doc^g 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your advice with the above page, I've actually got really poor bandwidth tonight so I can't load any diffs (I went into uni to start the RfC), I'll plough through the history to see if I can get any attempts to solve the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, they must be attempts by YOU as the person certifying the dispute.--Doc^g 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I'm not trying to screw her over, if attepts haven't been made, it should be deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry if I implied otherwise.--Doc^g 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, beyond the issue Doc is raising, the question is what you hope to achieve with the RfC. I can understand why you filed it (you will have seen what I posted myself to Kelly's talkpage just yesterday), but I'm not sure that keeping the RfC open has much chance of actually accomplishing anything that the community's prior expressions of opinion have failed to. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Brad, I'll certainly ponder that tomorrow (I'm working all day so it'll give me something to think about), my major problem at present with the RfC is that it's changed from my initial concerns of incivility, now it's turned to how she's acted in RfA discussions, and I'm not happy about that, but she's entitled to her own opinion as we all are. What I hoped to gain from it was Kelly to participate in more civil discussion, I don't appreciate calling a respected administrators comments as trolling, but, as I said, I'll have a big think about things. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your question posed in my RfA. It's an area I'm interested in, so I'd be happy to discuss things further. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too have responded to your question on my RfA regarding WP:BLP. Thanks for your interest, let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know. The Rambling Man 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question on my RfA, which I have also answered. I hope this is helpful and would invite any further questions, either at my RfA page or my talk page as appropriate. Thanks again. Adambro 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many responses! :D --Iamunknown 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my username is user:bucs10 and i forgot my password, do you think you could help, right now i am using my friends username user:footballfan1 so can you leave the message on his discussion page--Footballfan1 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this issue's been raised to me, and I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, Lankybugger (or iterations of it) has been my online handle for quite some time both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. On the other hand, I actually wasn't aware that there were people who still regarded it all that seriously, but I certainly wouldn't want to run around with something offensive on my name.

I'm certainly going to give it some serious thought. Thanks for the input. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for listening.--Doc^g 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken the steps towards Usurping the Username of User:Lanky, so we'll see how that goes. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did u create the BT page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Eh? --Doc^ga pox on the boxes 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means unrestrained! Giano 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be restrained.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem [1] the very first meaning given. Anyway why is KM allowed to say what she likes and everyone else has to grovel about her? Giano 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, stop trolling. You said you wanted to ignore - well do it. I care not a whit about Kelly's feelings - but we don't need you to take this into the gutter.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, you may wish to refrain from fighting monsters, too. Friday (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perhaps - I just find it difficult to disarm when the trolls come in.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for three hours for continued edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. A note explaining this situation is in the process of being posted to WP:ANI. Naconkantari 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the substance of the dispute? Doc was removing personal attacks, how this warrants a block is beyond me. --Iamunknown 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, no. This is the last thing we needed. Newyorkbrad 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this block. And why was the talk page deleted? El_C 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This is probably an unjustified block - but given it is done in good faith, I will not object. However, as I now undertake NOT to remove the trolling again from that page - this preventative block is now unnecessary--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g<small>[[WP:UNBOX|a pox on the boxes]]</small> 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) }}

I would support unblocking Doc and the other three editors. Action deferred temporarily pending discussion at ANI. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative, not putative. So if the others indicate that they will cease edit-waring to replace the trolling, I would support their unblock too.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. – Steel 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Glasgow, sir, when did the reasons you provided suddenly become enough to remove such templates from articles? Such templates exist on tens of thousands of articles on wikipedia, and are continually being added, and in all these the same reasoning could be used if anyone so wished. These templates are wonderful! It's great that wikipedia has users who like to start revolutions on wikipedia on small articles about Glasgow bishops, but in this case I cannot understand it. Why d'you want them out?. There are alternative places to get the information? Great! Never heard that argument on an English monarch page, a pope, a US President, etc, etc. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can I ask why you have removed my edits to Roy Oldham as they are clearly documented by local press.

Regards,

LB

Cos we respect neutrality here - and collecting a bnunch of negative material from newspapers isn't it.--Doc^g 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle suggestion. I suppose you're probably aware that your sig points to a deleted page, but I suggest it would be helpful to (avoid confusing) newbies if it didn't... Cheers, --Dweller 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't.--Doc^g 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]