Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chickpeaface (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 30 November 2007 (→More Talk:Courtney Love). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Doc glasgow/tidy

Meraloma

James

Any idea why deletion was recommended for the Meraloma Club as a wiki entry...

"LOCAL SPORTS CLUB" does not seem like a good reason...

More Talk:Courtney Love

Any idea what this was all about? I blocked Chickpeafacelickscourtney due to the similarly between them and Chickpeaface and rolled the page back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A re-incarnation of an abusive conspiracy theorist nut I booted last week for BLP violations. Doesn't need checkuser to tell me this is User:Cobaincase. My advice? Keep blocking.--Doc 10:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed an odd edit they made to their user page and then looked at the discussion. Don't normally see the Courtney Love article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 69.108.139.127 is the same user. He left this on my talk page. Xuchilbara (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Same or not, looks like a nasty troll. Best revert and ignore. I'd block the IP, but it looks very dynamic - if there's anything I can usefully do to help let me know. But if you simply remove the messages without comment, the troll will get bored.--Doc 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Would you mind having a look at what's being said on the talk page today? Thank you! Chickpeaface 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. But I think I'll pass.--Doc 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses

Hi, I just noticed that you left me a warning. I had undone your previous edit, which I assumed was vandalism; because you deleted all of the links to well documented pages of clerical abuse. For instance, you deleted links to the pages for John Geoghan whose page has references from the New York Times and Boston Globe. The reason that there aren't direct references on the page is because it was originally a part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases entry. I would appreciate it if you would review this and add a statement beneath your warning on my talk page stating that your warning was due to a misunderstanding. Mrbusta (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no mistake on my part. I removed unreferenced material from the article as per policy - and clearly marked what I was doing in my edit summary and in an explanatory note on the talk page. If you ignored both of those notes and chose instead to "assumed vandalism", that's hardly my fault (please read the policy on assuming good faith). You reverted me without discussion, which in the case of WP:BLP removals is not permitted. Rather than immediately block you, I served you with a warning. It may well be that you have misunderstood, but I could not certify that.--Doc 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries

It's a good point that too many eager beavers forget - "why is the IP upset with this text?". Neil ☎ 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Articles

I was wondering why you delete articles about people working in professional capacities in let's say the film industry, because of them not being notable enough, but yet the site has many articles about porn stars, who aren't even really famous of infamous. This is in regards to your recent deletion of my collegue Giovanni Igneri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Artie (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid[REDACTED] is not consistent.--Doc 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Meraloma Club

There are thousands of entries for athletic clubs in Wiki. There is an entry for a much younger club at http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Rugby_Club

What is going on here?

70.70.24.221 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Frank LaGrotta

I'm just curious why you deleted the criminal charges section of Frank LaGrotta because of the status of the Beaver County Times. What's wrong with a local newspaper, as long as it's independent of the subject? It seems by your criteria that no local paper would be sufficient, just big ones. Surely there's no need to revert back and forth on this, so I've reposted this with a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source, but I'd like you to reconsider your criteria or characterisation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

I saw John and your posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. I was responsive to requests by various people to stop. I wasn't aware I that you or anyone else was requesting some additional response as well. Your 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped and logged off. Doc, why didn't you check my contributions before blocking me? Your block was wrong and you owe me an apology. -- Jreferee t/c 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did check your contributions - maybe there was 69 seconds between my last refresh of your contributions loading and my finishing deciding on the duration of the block and what to write in the block summary. Sorry for that delay. --Doc 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your looking at the block template brings our actions closer in time than the two minutes makes it appear - a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, there were better ways go about my actions. Sorry for the anxiety. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also reported my block on ANI, and there was no criticism.--Doc 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I genuinely regret this whole thing. No hard feelings on my part.--Doc 01:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I regret the spamming and causing concern for my actions in other admins. I don't think I've ever done that before (at least not as an admin). When my concept and implementation of "a good idea" overlooks obvious concerns, I likely do need a break as was mentioned in the ANI. I did found it odd being on the receiving end of the checkuser portion of that ANI discussion. I'll certainly be a better admin because of it. -- Jreferee t/c 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser stuff was just the usual paranoid lunacy.--Doc 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Burge

You should have a look at this article again - the problematic material was simply re-added wholesale, with demands for a line by line critique. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the image

but I linked it internally from the wikipage, so ??? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is copyrighted. It is being used on an article under a "fair use" claim. See WP:FUC. That claim cannot extend to userspace. Policy (and law) is clear here.--Doc 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware, and thanks for fixing it. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill

Why the objection to the image? What harm does it do? Dick G 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe (and I could be mistaken) it violates our copyright policies. It isn't a matter of harm.--Doc 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)