Bob, just Bob (talk | contribs) By the way you might want to remove the Wikibreak notice since "I may contribute to some current arbcom cases, but that's it" is obviously not true. |
Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
By the way you might want to remove the Wikibreak notice since "I may contribute to some current arbcom cases, but that's it" is obviously not true. [[User:Bob, just Bob|Bob, just Bob]] 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
By the way you might want to remove the Wikibreak notice since "I may contribute to some current arbcom cases, but that's it" is obviously not true. [[User:Bob, just Bob|Bob, just Bob]] 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
:It appears not - I'm back dealing with trolls as usual. FWIW Grue was blocked for reversing an admin's actions without discusion and blankign a debate. I've done neither of those things. I closed a bad-faith debate and archieved it, which is perfectly proper. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:14, 1 April 2006
Archives:
- i ii Old wiki-musings
- 1 Apr-Aug 2005
- 2 Aug-Sep 2005
- 3 to 1/10/05
- 4 to 12/10/05
- 5 to 28/10/05
- 6 to 11/11/05
- 7 to 30/11/05
- 8 to 16/01/06
- 9 to 02/02/06
- 10 to 18/02/06
- 11 to 28/02/06
- Userbox crap
Still live
Don't Threaten Me
that wasn't even my statement to begin with. You have no right to delete other users opinions --T-rex 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The 1,000,000th Article is pertinent to your area
The Jordanhill Railway Station is in a suburb of Glasgow, so I thought maybe when you get word of it being the millionth article, you might possibly visit the station, take some photos, and upload it onto the article. --Shultz III 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Userbox
Was it really neccesary to remove the " and cannot figure out why other Americans have trouble with [metric units] " from Template:user_metric_wish-1?? That was the whole point of the userbox.--Weatherman1126 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!
I see nothing strange
I see nothing strange about -Ril- requesting to have you banned. I see something very wrong, but not strange. He is trying to intimidate and cow the less vocal, just as he says his critics are doing. Robert McClenon 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of -Ril-
Perhaps you find the allegation that User:Melissadolbeer is a sockpuppet of -Ril- to be absurd because she insults -Ril-. I think that -Ril- is engaging in a form of Internet theater that uses puppets in a way that is typical of ventriloquism. A ventriloquist often has a dummy (i.e., puppet) who insults or argues with or makes personal attacks on the puppet-master. It is not a particularly common form of behavior by Internet trolls, but it is a form of theater. It does not change the fact that -Ril- is disrupting the encyclopedia and should be banned. Robert McClenon 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] <freakofnurxture|>
FireFox Update
Hey, Doc. While on IRC I noticed in your quit message (which is auto-generated by Chatzilla) that you're using FF 1.0.7 which, I might add, is over 6 months old. As someone who contributes to FireFox, I encourage you to update to the newest version, 1.5.0.1. It's chock full of new fixes and features (Changelogs: 1.5 1.5.0.1) Cheers, ZsinjTalk 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Oi!
You trying to steal my spammer? --GraemeL (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Stadler GTW
That article was NOT gibberish, it had been machine transated from the German language wikipedia, and needed to be cleand up, not deleted. The artcle already exits on the Teutophone wikipedia I was trying to establish an Anglophone version.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)v:-(
- I had no way of knowing that. I suggest you use a sandbox for works in progress, and don't submit articles into the main namespace until they are in English. --Doc ask? 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
?
Why did you revert my edit? That message will save us a great deal of page moving and relinking later.Gateman1997 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- , sorry meant to post a reason on your page. avoid self-references. Instrustions on how to create articles belong on talk pages, or projects, not article pages. --Doc ask? 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be acceptable to place that message in the sentence where it currently says "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."? I think it needs to be promenantly placed so people actually will read it. I'm afraid the talk page is most often ignored.Gateman1997 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- , sorry meant to post a reason on your page. avoid self-references. Instrustions on how to create articles belong on talk pages, or projects, not article pages. --Doc ask? 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wont revert it, as long as it isn't in the body of the article. --Doc ask? 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- How's that?Gateman1997 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wont revert it, as long as it isn't in the body of the article. --Doc ask? 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey
Can you please undelete the Font Exploit page if possible. It is a major thing in the PSP community that needs discussion and is there to help others.
Re:Prod and Speedy
Many thanks for the words of wisdom. I didn't realize that was the correct procedure, but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Best, Gwernol 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A final decision has been reached in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A Question for You
On my RfA, you stated that "[you're] not happy with editors that feel the need to use their userspace for advocacy". On the RfA, I asked you a question, "What am I advocating with my userpage?" joturner 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Confused by your message
Doc glasgow, I am so confused by your message. I am really unable to understand your message whatever you have written on my talk page. Please make me understand, thanks Shyam (T/C) 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) sorry, I thought, it was written on my talk page. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, now I'm confused too, since I don't recall and can't find my post to your page. Can you copy it here, or give me a diff and I'll try to help? --Doc ask? 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
sure
Okey dokey then. It's no biggie, and I am not going to waste my time on that. The next time I want to link to a webpage I'll make sure to ask you first, since you are so interested in my userspace... -- Karl Meier 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. It's just great to have a person like "Doc glasgow" deciding what I can and can't have on my userpage. Will you allow my replacement link, or will you spend your night writing new appeals asking other admins to intervene in this most important matter? -- Karl Meier 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Doc's Law
From the admin noticeboard...
Doc's law: The oldest troll tactic on the wiki is to say, 'hey my offensive noise raises profound questions of the freedom of speech' and then sit back whilst otherwise sane editors defend their right to troll
- I feel that that was directed at me. If in fact it was, I'd like to point out that the last sentence on my statement said "However, I must point out that if your point here is to troll (as I suspect may be the motive behind the Scientology link), that is not condoned by me." For me, intention is what is important as that is the best indicator of appropriateness (although that is often very hard to discern). For instance, I don't really see the cartoon with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as inappropriate because he probably just thinks it's funny. Whether you agree or anyone else agrees is debateable. Nevertheless, I am glad he removed the content.
- What do you think of User:Markaci/Nudity by the way? joturner 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, not really aimed at you. If you look at the move above your post on ANI, you'll not how Karl states 'hey this raises questions of userpage freedom', which distracts from the fact of his trolling. I've seen so much of that move lately from a number of (currently banned) users. Yes, there is a debate about what userspace is for, but we can recognise troll for what they are. --Doc ask? 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can u help me?
I need ur help for using the logo Image:govtofkerala.gif it is the logo of the government and doesnot seem to be bound by strict (C) restrictions. What shall i do so that it can be used in Wikipedia? Tux the penguin 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
User review
You didn't leave the similar message on Kelly Martin's and Mackensen's talk pages, didn't you? It's funny that I'm "reverting another admin's action" and these chaps regularly get away with it. I'm just keeping status quo and Deletion Review is not a place for the discussion whether template should be deleted. TfD is. DR is for discussion whether it was deleted legitimately and it wasn't (and you know it). Grue 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Abusivity
Oh you are so dolemical and pivisive I might just usurp a steward account and desysop you. I am almost certain that your recent edits abuse something. If you stop, I will seek advice, in a court of law in New Jersey, about how to deal with you. -Splashtalk 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- PS. Is it New Jersey we use? I always forget. They have so many "New"s over there. -Splashtalk 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Boxes
LOL!!! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up
Thanks for the heads up on that. I have to say I'm very disturbed that I'm being stalked in this manner if infact I've got people hunting my every move looking for evidence I might be someone I'm not. Do you have the names of these "determined" people so I can report them to WP:AN/I for stalking? Because at this point that is what it would be. They are attacking a ship that has already sailed. David Gerard himself proved rightly that we're not the same person and moved on, what more do they want? Frankly if this continues I'm off the project as I've done NOTHING to warrant this kind of harrassment. Since I was banned and brought back I've left SPUI pretty much alone, and just edited articles. Yes I commented in his RFC but what's wrong with that. Now I've got his personal goon squad out to kill me? Great place this has become if that's the case. Gateman1997 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in this. Unfortunately for the innocent user (and for the policing admins) CU is often undefinative. It can sometimes indicate if IPs are the same or different, but a judgement as to whether or not a user is using two IPs is always about sifting edits and editing patterns. I see no evidence of stalking, but I do see some investigations being made. If you've nothign to hide (and I personally have no reason to dount your word) then you have nothing to fear. If someone thinks they have a case, they will have to bring it into the open in due course. --Doc ask? 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I do have nothing to hide, and frankly it's not that it's being "investigated" that chaps my ass, it's that it's being investigated AGAIN! How many times do they have to prove I'm NOT User:JohnnyBGood until they're satisfied? THAT is the part that is stalking. They're revisiting an issue that was already very traumatic for me and cause me to be blocked for 48 unjustified hours. You don't know how distressing that can be until you are blocked indefinitely and left to rot because the blocking admin and any other admins around won't do anything about it. They just say "email the blocking admin" and guess what... the mother doesn't have a valid email anywhere in the project! You explain this and do they help, NO! This is the only reason I'm still involved with this motherfucking state highway debate at all. I owe Rschen big time and and doing anything I can to help him. I honestly don't give a rats ass or flying fuck about any of the things being discussed but I will support a user who was the only one kind enough to listen to me when I was for all intents and purposes kicked out of the project. I owe him all I can on here. So if I'm taking it too hard that people are resnooping in the same shit looking for something they'll never find, you'll have to excuse me. Gateman1997 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the checkuser was blank. What concerns me is the bias however against these two editors that many Wikipedia editors have, sinply because they're fighting against SPUI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder
I did not personally attack him, I didn't say I agree with them at all. I asked him if [the link was the reason he was for the deletion of the Wikipedia Review box, I would've thought that was obvious - WP:AGF? It does seem likely that is the reason he wants the site "removed", as most people in his position probably would. Bob, just Bob 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- He did not give it as a reason. And it is not assuming good faith to infer he is motivated my personal feelings of animosity. --Doc ask? 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Your blanking of DrV discussions, just like User:Grue was banned for...
Please read Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Blanking_of_DrV_debates_by_User:Doc_glasgow_and_User:Pgk. Bob, just Bob 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way you might want to remove the Wikibreak notice since "I may contribute to some current arbcom cases, but that's it" is obviously not true. Bob, just Bob 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)