Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 1 October 2006

User:Doc glasgow/tidy

User: Uberlol

Hiya Doc. Thank you for helping me out last time with that guy using my name as his wiki ID.

Unfortunately he has migrated the exact same wiki user page to his new user account "Uberlol" - is there anything you can do about it?

Frontline Ministries International

Was there a problem with my sources for this article? FMI's own webpage is easy to find, their literature is a bit harder to find but I've personally read it, the newspaper articles about them are fairly easy to find, and the DVD is a little harder to find but I've personally seen it. Their stated position is that their leadership heals the blind in Africa, etc. so I see no reason this should be left out of the article.

AfD on Manchester councillor

Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. --Doc 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

{{User Socialist}}

You deleted {{User Socialist}} in May, without noting that it was transcluded into a lot of users' pages. Why?! — OwenBlacker 13:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I? I can't recall. --Doc 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Werbe Article

So apparently, recorded statements straight from the horse's mouth are not acceptable as sources? --John Alder 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shaun Bussert

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

?Sorry, not following that. Sounds complicated. I don't close that many AfDs these days. --Doc 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Non-notability

Why are you marking WP:NNOT as rejected? I realize that theres like .. four people.. that want this page marked as rejected. But please understand that there are more than 4 people that have been working on this proposal, and are *still* working on it. We have not come to a consensus rejecting this proposal - but we should, on the talk page. So please, don't be presumptuous with your edits. Just because you don't like the proposal, doesn't mean you have to change the page to reflect that. Fresheneesz 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do like the idea of not using notability. But notability is constantly used as a criterion by a good number of the community. The idea that it shouldn't be used has often been argued and just as often been rejected. The idea has no consensus, indeed probably even has a majority against it. Ergo that idea has been rejected by the community.--Doc 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly that. The idea has no consensus - in either direction. Thus it is not a rejected idea, but an ongoing one. The community has not rejected it, you have.

You also decided to remove my straw poll. I'm going to replace it, and as I told Radiant: removing peoples comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. As friendly as I can say this, I will arbitrate if you remove it a second time. Fresheneesz 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A poll isn't a comment. It is to initiate a proceedure which lacks consensus at this point. Please don't reopen it.--Doc 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the proposal. However, I can't stand for repetitive removal of my poll. Please consider the arbitration a friendly place to disucss the use of polls, and the validity of removing polls. Thanks. Fresheneesz 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

crats

I though this might be off-track for the workshop page, but in response to your comments, I think presenting false dichotomies. One could hold the opinion (or the arbcom could find) that consensus was not read (whether by mistake, or by intent) in the Carnildo case, without that meaning that crats "have no legitimacy in determining consensus on RFA". One can say that a particular crat or two made a mistake without making any broad statements about crats in general. Similiarly, one can say that a mistake was made in this case without saying "we must always just strictly count numbers." Friday (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're technically right. But AC needs to be very careful. If it implies the crats shouldn't have sysopped in this case, and that their call 'lacks legitimacy', it may well be interpreted to hugely restrict crats discression to interprete consensus. It might either make the crats very cautious not to always go witht he numbers, or alternaively provide a weapon for those disgruntled with future decisions. Individual cases will tend to set precidents.--Doc 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the concern. However (and here's where I suspect we may differ), maybe it's good for the crats to get the impression that they should be conservative in their use of the promotion button. They are only a few crats, they have very limited duties, and promotion of a sysop is not something that have the ability to undo. These all sound (to me) like good reasons for the crats to be conservative in promoting. I think the role of crats is an important question, but probably not one for arbcom to decide. However, if a particular editor thinks the crats erred, or for that matter, if the arbcom thinks the crats erred, of course they should feel free to say so. Friday (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we neccessarily differ here. Crats aren't above criticism, and to be honest I've never looked at the metits of the RfA in question. However, I guess I'm happier to trust at least part of the decision to sysop to experienced users (in whom the community has placed some trust) rather than just to numbers generated by RfA. I mean, you do get some crazy reasoning on RfA votes - and someone needs to have the disgression to ignore grudge votes, or people are unhappy about unpopular but very neccessary things a user has been doing. Otherwise stub sorters will be in the kingdom ahead of anyone who works with image copyvios. Perhaps we need more crats, so unilateral desisions are avoided in difficult cases. whatever way we go with this one, there will be problems. RfA isn't broken, it is just perhaps not always the best way of doing things. --Doc 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)