Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Bell (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 28 February 2007 (→Strong objection to your unblock of []: I object strongly to your characterization of my unblock being a result of "forum-shopping".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: I usually respond to comments on the talk page on which they are made. If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond on your talk page and I will reply there. If you leave a comment on this page, I may respond on your talk page—please be sure to specify if that's where you would like me to respond—but most likely will only respond here, so please keep an eye on this page for my response. I greatly prefer to keep the entire discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it across multiple pages.

If you came here about an admin action of mine: Please make sure to include links and/or diffs to the issue you are inquiring about.

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006 February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006 April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006 August 1, 2006 – November 27, 2006 November 28, 2006 – December 14, 2006 December 14, 2006 – February 7, 2007

Riana's RfA

Hi there, the support vote was a joke. I know that I have to wait for her to accept and for the page to be listed at RfA, and even though I like her personally, I still think that it's my responsibility to read her answers and to more thoroughly review her contributions before choosing how to vote. Thanks for responding. --Kyoko 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda daunting... as in, if I reach 100, I have to be just that good :) I'm trying not to keep an eye on it too much, but then I'm scared someone will ask me something incredibly soul-searching and I won't see it, so I'm kinda fidgety right now. riana_dzasta 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Everyking's RfA

Please note an RfA is not a vote, but a discussion, so I'm entitled to "badger" as you put it. I have harassed nobody at all, and as it is Proto has still not explained why he wouldn't ever trust him again. Please don't tell me to stop doing things I am allowed to do. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not tell you what to do, I asked. Please be civil as you have asked others. In a discussion, someone can say "I don't think that's a good idea." That opinion can be judged for its value based on the reputation and experience of the person making it. That is a contribution to the discussion, not a vote. They can choose to elaborate on why it's not a good idea, and that adds further to the discussion, but the statement itself is still part of the discussion, not a vote. Nobody is required to add anymore to the discussion than they choose, and for you to make disparaging remarks about another person's contribution to the discussion, when the sole basis of your complaint is simply that they did not contribute enough, is badgering and at best impolite and at worst incivil. —Doug Bell  18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please stop" is telling me what to do. I don't really know where I wasn't civil, but to call my comments badgering is incivil. It's a discussion, so I can comment where I like and as much as I like. In this case, Proto put Absolutely not. That is what I call impolite – not only is it degrading to the candidate, it helps the discussion no further. Why absolutely not? What has the candidate done to deserve such a strong two word !vote? Same with your comment – simply putting oppose means nothing in a discussion. What you've done is voted. A sensible bureaucrat would normally ignore votes. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stop" is telling you what to do, "Please stop" is asking. English 101. The bureaucrat is free to weigh anyone's comments as they see fit. The same goes with support. I don't see you querying Terence Ong about his reasons for supporting, and a bureaucrat may well decide to discount his contribution as well. —Doug Bell  18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is general etiquette to provide a reason for opposing – the candidate should be "innocent until proven guilty". And support traditionally means they agree with the nomination. That's why I don't question Terence, and anyway, I often support without comment myself. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have participated on at least 100 RfAs and this is only the first (or maybe second, not positive) time I've left an oppose without stating my reasons. I will leave it to the bureaucrat to decide whether to take my comment in light of my past reasoning or to discount it. I prefer not to get into my reasons, but I have them. I think Proto's response to your request was quite clear, and nearly identical to Radiant's immediately preceeding oppose, which you seem to have no issue with. It was your followup response that I found to be badgering and bordering on incivility, not your initial request for clarification, especially since with his response to your request, Proto's reasons are as well stated as many other opposers. —Doug Bell  18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! at least stated why he opposes; Proto didn't. He did indeed explain vaguely after I asked; it was the edit summary (as I said) that bothered me: "constructive and polite response to patronising". If he had simply put "reply" or whatever I would have taken the issue no further, but he obviously has a problem with clarifying himself, if he finds it patronising. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice colour scheme

Aah #2F4F4F - like that colour, now I got the code....cheers Cas Liber 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you might have worded things better

Hello, I ended up following the whole thing between you and Sarah and Riana and Spawn, and I thought I would say that you might have worded things a little better and perhaps gotten a better response from Spawn Man. I've left my own message on his talk page, and I hope he takes it to heart. --Kyoko 09:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, but I'm tired of his antics. While that's probably the most uncivil thing I've said here at Misplaced Pages, it's also accurate and nowhere near as uncivil as his comments have been. At this point I'm not going to tiptoe around his tantrums anymore. —Doug Bell  09:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you made the comments, and I chose to write something on his page because I was pretty offended by what I see as an abuse of Riana's talk page, especially when she has worries in real life. I hope you agree with what I wrote on Spawn Man's talk pagee. I'm concerned about him, that he might be acting this way out of problems in RL, but that's not something I can or should fix for him. I hope things get better for everyone, including Spawn. --Kyoko 09:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sordid" is precisely the right adjective. Glad you enjoyed that: if the whole thing wasn't at such an inappropriate time it would be so funny I'd be rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter, but as it is it just isn't amusing. I've seen a few things that have angered me at Misplaced Pages, but nothing so revolted me as that. Criminy. What a wikidrama to wake up to in the morning...Cheers, Moreschi 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW you may like to check the history of Jimbo's talk. Feel free to revert me if you like, maybe that should be allowed to stand. Then again, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I might revert back to Spawn's version - I understand the motive behind it, but hell, everyone else seems to use Jimbo's talk as a sounding board. It'd be disrespectful to Spawn to not let him have his say. I don't mind if Jimbo wishes to step in, either (although I doubt he would, in a hundred million years). riana_dzasta 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to revert it. —Doug Bell  12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fake messages bar

Oh thank God! :) Glen 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wranglers 04 userpage

I have no idea if this is the proper way to communicate right now, but I'll give it a shot.

Today, February 10th I logged on to my userpage and discovered it has been deleted by you. My userpage. It told about myself, it told of my wikipedia expierence, and you deleted it. At first during the deletion many claimed I wasn't an active member of Misplaced Pages.. that assumption was quickly verified. Following which the claim was it was used for "advertising", that point quickly stumbled upon my defense. Then it was it didn't have enough content about my Misplaced Pages expierences, I added a section. Though it was small I admit, but it was there. Did you delete my userpage for personal reasons? Because quite frankly, I'm stumped right now. A year ago I created the original Wranglers_04 section in Misplaced Pages's main space, a moderator kindly moved it to my userpage, a year later its gone. My personal userpage, who of which the average Misplaced Pages user (and probably the above average at that) would have never seen in the first place.

Doug, honest to God, tell me what was wrong with it. Try not to use some B.S excuse (yes, I said b.s, that stands for bull sh*t), and talk to me. My effort, my work into that page is gone like a snap, unsaved. This is demoralizing. I've never "spammed" wikipedia, I've never been abusive, sure I guess my use of words in the deletion debate could have been better but that's out of a burst of passion and pride to my work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wranglers 04 (talk • contribs).

First, this is a fine venue for communicating regarding your deleted user page.

The reason why this page was deleted is that it does not conform with what is allowed on user pages. User pages are not for creating or keeping articles that have themselves already been determined not appropriate for inclusion here. User pages are not personal pages for people to put any content they'd like on. As the closing administrator for the deletion discussion, it was my job to read the arguments on the talk page, evaluate the basis of those arguments, and then determine what the consensus of the discussion was in relation to Misplaced Pages policies.

While I can understand your frustration with people just posting shortcuts to policy pages like WP:USER, if you are interested in understanding what is allowed and why people think that your page does not meet that criteria, I really suggest that you do read the "link to a B.S site".

Neither Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) nor 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs) (which I assume is you) have made any edits to Misplaced Pages outside of the User:Wrangler 04 user page, the previous Wranglers 04 article and the deletion discussion. This does not constitute being an active contributor, although it wouldn't really matter anyway as the content of the deleted page would be inappropriate in either case. Note also that most of the other contributors to the deleted page—68.203.244.250 (talk · contribs), Jerseyboy92 (talk · contribs), 70.182.94.68 (talk · contribs), and 69.37.50.46 (talk · contribs)—have also not made any edits outside of these pages. This constitutes a use of this Web site for purposes entirely separate from building an encyclopedia, and therefore they were deleted. —Doug Bell  00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, why should I take the heat of what userpages are and what they aren't? Was the moderator who moved my material there incorrect? It outrages me to hear it was "inappropriate".. I'd love for you to talk to the moderator who moved my material and discuss the manner, because clearly I guess I'm out of it and it was very "wrong" for me to do this. I've seen several other userpages here at wikipedia who of which do not include the criteria you included.

So because I said "link to a B.S site", my userpage is not credible. Unbelievable.

Secondly, you are incorrect on your assesment of my editing. If you look at the Austin Wranglers wikipedia page you will see I have added over 10 paragraphs concerning the team, feversishly updating whenever a move is made. On top of this, I have added on to CJ Miles' wiki, along with contribting to Westwood High School of Austin, Texas. In addition I have made several others on other respective sites. I am extremely dissapointed in your lack of research which leads me to ponder what other mistakes you have made.

You aren't (or shouldn't be) taking the heat for the page. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be deleted, but given that another administrator moved it there, nobody should be "giving you heat". I understand that some of the comments on the MfD (the deletion discussion) were either abrupt, or assigning motives to you that may not have been accurate. Please don't take any of that personally.

Your "B.S." comment had no bearing on the decision. The only point I was making about that comment was that it indicated that you weren't availing yourself of the explanations people were trying to offer. It would help your cause to become familiar with the policies.

My assessment of your editing is based on the contributions by Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) and 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs). If you've edited anonymously under other IP addresses, I would have no way of knowing that.

One other thing, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. —Doug Bell  02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I'm not a spammer, I'm not a hater. I don't feel like going in circles over this whole ordeal.. I will agree to add thick and thorough details over my Misplaced Pages usage and edits I have made over the past, plus I will continue to edit under Wranglers_04. If possible I would like to have my original content below it if possible.

I've seen how other users here set up their pages-- some with the buttons representing their interests and such.

Wranglers 04 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

We're not haters either. As I said above, even if you were a prolific contributor, the page would be inappropriate. It is not written as a breif list of your interests, but rather as an encyclopedic article. Further, although I don't quite understand its significance, the discussion of your business interest is also against policy. Misplaced Pages user pages are not to be used for any commercial interests or advertising. Including a mention of your message board id on your user page if fine. Including a lengthy article written in the third person chronicaling your history of message board participation is not. People are allowed to include a short bio, but aren't allowed to include their resumé. User pages are not for promotion, advertisement or social networking. The purpose is to support your activities writing an encyclopedia here. People are allowed some measure of leeway with this policy, but your page was outside the boundaries of this leeway. The fact that no record of your participation in the encyclopedia was evident further cuts the slack allowed to zero.

The decision to delete the page was not mine, although had I offered an opinion in the matter, it would have been to delete the page. The decision was based on Misplaced Pages policies and the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion. I can't see much on the page that would be allowed. If you want a copy to move to another site off Misplaced Pages I will be happy to provide the deleted content to you—just ask. —Doug Bell  05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the deleted content. Thanks. Wranglers 04 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

OK, I've restored the content. I will delete it again in a couple of days, so get it before then. —Doug Bell  17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Restored content redeleted. —Doug Bell  21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zapptastic/chess

Inasmuch as I've undertaken on one or two occasions to quibble with an administrative action of yours, I imagine that I ought to offer my compliments on your close of the instant MfD; I'd intended to suggest such a resolution myself (prima facie evidence, of course, of its wisdom) but think, more importantly, that you accurately appreciated for what general action a consenus lay, notwithstanding that no single editor appeared to have explicitly endorsed such specific action. For your fine exercise of good judgment, you receive the treasued good on ya! . Cheers, Joe 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —Doug Bell  07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list

I don't understand your actions here. You closed it as delete, then changed to merge, then deleted the revision where you changed to merge? --NE2 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I rather made a mess of the closing. The original decision to delete is the final decision. —Doug Bell  01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be wrong with a single list of songs in Dance Dance Revolution, or possibly just list of licensed songs in Dance Dance Revolution? Also, why did you delete the revision when you could have just reverted? --NE2 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is the policy referenced in the decision. There is nothing encyclopedic regarding the song lists and they add little or nothing to the articles. Which is a point made by several of the comments in the discussion. I probably should have just reverted, but I was trying to head off any confusion...probably just created more. If that's an issue for you, I'll restore my intervening edit and revert it, but I don't think it really matters. —Doug Bell  01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw your deletion was "he's trying to hide something"; it's probably not true but it could be seen that way. Anyway, I don't think you realize what "indiscriminate" means; a list of songs included in a specific game - a game that's music-based - is very discriminate. --NE2 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe indiscriminate is not quite the correct description. Providing the list does not contribute to an encyclopedic discussion of the game. It is merely listing all of the elements of the game. It would be like including a list of all of the levels in a video game. After seeing this series of articles, I'm thinking of recommending that the articles themselves be merged into a single article that discusses the entire series of games as the primary distinction between them seems to be the list of included songs. If you think I've misread the consensus in the AfD you can open a deletion review. —Doug Bell  01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that this decision will be used in the future to speedy-delete a better-structured list, like one of songs that Konami has licensed for DDR. --NE2 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any "list of elements" for a product is going to be encyclopedic, regardless of how well formatted it is. —Doug Bell  01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These songs are basically what the game is about. Generally it would make sense to include the songs on the article about the game, like Guitar Hero nd Guitar Hero II, but there are a large number of repeats in the DDR series, so it might be better organizationally to create one article. --NE2 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Particularly when the distinction between the individual elements is negligible. Whereas a list of characters in a series of books might have a place here because something specific and unique can be said about each of them, a list of elements that are not themselves sufficiently distinguishable does not seem to be to be encyclopedic. —Doug Bell  01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have individual articles about some of the licensed songs (Get Busy for instance), and articles for most of the artists. Linking together the two is a navigational matter. --NE2 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the relation of each song to the game is basically the same. There is nothing specific or unique to say about the individual songs as they relate to the game other than listing non-encyclopedic details such as which songs can be used in which mode in the game. The fact that some of the song may have articles on them is not germain because those articles have nothing to do with the Dance Dance game. —Doug Bell  01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were making such a list, I would not include "non-encyclopedic details such as which songs can be used in which mode in the game". It would simply be a full list of songs that Konami has licensed for the game. --NE2 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced of any encyclopedic value, but it's really not a matter of convincing just me. —Doug Bell  02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

However, couldn't your "delete" close be used to speedy-delete a similar list in the future as a "recreation of deleted material"? --NE2 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you recreated all of the individual articles, yes. If you created a single article with the list, maybe. If you added the list to the Dance Dance Revolution article then it's a content discussion not a deletion discussion. But I don't think a list of that size is appropriate in the article or as a separate list article. —Doug Bell  02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the suggestion to merge the articles as it would be much more useful and comprehensive to have a single article discussing all the aspects of the series rather than something like 50 different articles with largely identical content except for song lists and release specifics. —Doug Bell  04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your view, although I question the feasibility - This will require a complete rewrite of this article. SYSS Mouse 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That will take far less effort than editing 50 separate articles each time a correction or addition to the common text is made. It would also make the entire entry more useful. Really, who is going to come here interested in the specific differences between all the different versions other than someone better served by a fan web site. Anyone wanting information on the game is much better served by a single, well-written article. The only significant difference is the song lists, and as I discuss above and was discussed at the deletion discussion, those extensive, also largely duplicated, lists are not encyclopedic and should go anyway. —Doug Bell  05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was coming here to pretty much make the same argument, but since it's been done:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --UsaSatsui 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents

Hello Doug,

I was a participant in this discussion and know that several editors had suggested keep and rename. I just wanted to double check that you in fact decided that a rename was not to be the outcome of that discussion, or is that to be left open for another discussion now that the page has been kept? Sancho McCann 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing any position on the renaming in closing the discussion. That would best be discussed on the talk page. —Doug Bell  08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sancho McCann 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And please stop closing things by WP:SNOW. It's controversial and divisive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's neither controversial nor divisive as evidenced by community consensus. Whether you find it so personally is not relevant. —Doug Bell  12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You're incorrect. It's very controversial, and very divisive. Do not do it in the future. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. —Doug Bell  12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been reverted!

Doug,

While the decision not to delete the article on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation was disappointing, I must say that your reasoning was certainly well-considered and fair.

Apparently, not all are as satisfied, however. In case you're not aware of it, CaveatLector has reverted your tag removal from the Talk page, with the explanation: "I'm sorry, but only the members of the LGBT studies project should be able to decide what does and does not belong under the project. This article CLEARLY falls under LGBT studies".

Can a non-Admin. revert an Administrator like that?? JGHowes 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. —Doug Bell  15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps my question was poorly phrased, instead of "can it be reverted?", more precisely the question is: Having rendered a decision on an AfD and deleted what was felt to be an inappropriate tag in the process for the reasons you gave, may the tag be properly reapplied, thereby nullifying your action? JGHowes 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My removal of the tag was not part of my administrative action. I did that as an editor for the reason I stated. If I still disagree I can discuss it on the talk page. That action by me carries no more weight than if an anonymous IP removed the tag, other than some accord given based on my history here. —Doug Bell  16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I also thought you did a nice job closing that AFD. Glad it wasn't my job... -Hit bull, win steak 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You've got some coming. riana_dzasta 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Back at you. :-) —Doug Bell  04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

My friend rang me up & said he edited your page. I'm so f'ed off right now. He could have gotten me blocked & I told him that stuff in confidence. I know I'm meant to be gone & for some bloody reason you've got a vendetta against me, but I am sorry for him vandalising your page. You can believe what you will, but it wasn't me. Spawn Man 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about a vendetta, although you will believe what you want. And I will believe what I want about Bob The Lemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you say "checkuser"? —Doug Bell  05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. I'm not him. Geez, what do you have against me? It's a complicated situation, but believe me man, I'm not him. My friend is in deep shit right now... Spawn Man 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell your friend to buzz off if his intentions are disruption. You do good work here on the FA's and stuff like that, so why not let the rest of the stuff go and concentrate on using your talents. Sorry to butt in.--MONGO 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't come back. I've made everyone hate me. Everyone thinks I'm a "Look at me" person now, which I'm not. You try putting up with some of the stuff I've had to & edit on here. As I've said (But no one is really listening) the RfA thing was not the real reason for my outburst. It's f'in personal, but no one's getting it. Now everyone hates me & thinks I'm self centred. I probably did blow everything out of proportion, but I was venting about a big event that happened in real life, that I really really don't want to talk about. The way I was handled however was not helpful... I only told my friend half a story. He's a dumass sometimes. He won't be on here again. Spawn Man 05:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spawn, do you have any idea what stuff MONGO's put up with? —Doug Bell  23:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, can you just delete his account. He used my nickname anyway & that's just mean using Bob in that way... :) Spawn Man 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict) Check user will be pretty conclusive, so if you're not him, no worries. You can choose to take this personally, or you can own your actions that led to where we are now and accept responsibility for your own circumstances. Despite what you may think, I would like to see you come back, but only if you can leave the immaturity and emotional outbursts at the door. I'm pretty sure nobody hates you, but I'm equally sure nobody appreciates your outbursts. Your choice. —Doug Bell  05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a big shot java guy, but I just have to say the way you talk to me really feels as if you're belittling me. You constantly seem to be talking down to me & that is why I guess I have a problem with me. Check user will show that it came from my comp, but as I said, very complicated situation. Thought I'd say that now for full clarity, but again, it wasn't me. I guess though, once you've made up your mind, I can't change it... Spawn Man 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You said your friend "rang you up" and then you were on the site a minute later. So if that's the case, and if for some strange reason he was at your computer, then the subsequent edits from Spawn Man must be a different location. Otherwise, no need to "ring you up" if you're sitting next to him and then using the same computer as Spawn Man. Right? —Doug Bell  05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I lied, as I said. My brother did do it, but I didn't want him to get wrapped up in everything. As I said, a dumass sometimes... I don't care about the Bob The Lemming acc, I never created it. I have my one & only account here. I know you have children, but I am not one of them so I'd appreciate if you talked to me on my intellectual level. I'm drafting up an apology letter now for the whole drama these past few days... Spawn Man 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But in any case, my Spawn Man account is unblocked right? I seem to be editing normally... And as I said, delete the Bob Lemming account. Spawn Man 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're able to edit normally. I'm looking into it now, but the only explanation is that you are editing from a different IP address. —Doug Bell  06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And no, the Bob The Lemming account won't be deleted, just tagged. —Doug Bell  06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Misplaced Pages afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know we've never seen eye to eye, but I think with a little bit of time, you'll make a great admin. I'd love if you held off blocking me (If you ever intended to, not that I did anything wrong as I've explained...) because I am making ammends to me unjust actions. I'm sorry to you Mr. Bell. Hopefully we can continue in a cordial way?

Spawn, where we go from here is completely dependent on your behaviour from here forward. You've gone a bit beyond simply saying sorry to fix everything, although I take your apology at face value. At least with me, and likely with others, you've used up the slack that is normally granted. This doesn't mean there is no redemption, and I hope you will recognize the complete sincerity with which I say this—I truly hope that you do continue here productively, and in harmony and without all the drama. As you state, it will take time and hard work repairing the relationships.

Yes, we haven't seen eye-to-eye much, but I have always tried to be patient and fair. I doubt you see it that way, but then I have trouble seeing things from your perspective as well. I know the comment I left on your user page was hurtful to you, but I hope you have the strength to assess it honestly. I said it because it needed to be said, not because it gave me any pleasure to do so.

I have no axe to grind with you, yet I am not inclined to broker any shennanigans from you either. I was not intending on blocking your Spawn Man account unless you gave me reason to. I strongly suggest you avoid editing Misplaced Pages when you are angry or upset—this wasn't the first time you've gotten out of control, but I hope it is the last. Let's see where we go from here. Sincerely, —Doug Bell  07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew it wouldn't be a straight tag acceptance of apology from you, but I'll accept it all the same. We're not all that different you & I, & I can see things from your persepective quite well. I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Thanks for the advice. I'll take it to heart. :) Spawn Man 08:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just speaking honestly and frankly. Your reply here gives me hope. —Doug Bell  08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands

I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for Misplaced Pages - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Misplaced Pages. I found it as the second legitimate article on Misplaced Pages's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs. YechielMan 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that this is a subpage of the main Poker probability (Omaha) page. In writing this article, rather than simply providing the tables of odds and probability, which you can find many places on the Internet, the intent is to provide the derivations behind the tables. These are obviously too long to include in the main article, so thus the subpages. The subject doesn't really stand on its own as an article, so it's not a "main" artice but rather a subpage.

The reasoning behind providing the derivations, which in some cases are quite expansive, is because this is precisely the type of information that makes the discussion of poker probability encyclopedic, rather than a simple regurgitation of tables. Without the derivations, the numbers in the Poker probability (Omaha) tables have to be taken at face value—there's no way to see where the numbers come from. By providing the derivations, the complete set of fomulas necessary to derive the probabilities are available.

As I started writing the article, it wasn't clear to me that some of the derivation tables were going to get so large. As I've continue with the article, adding sections, some of the derivations, in particular this one, have gotten rather large. A lot of the size is due to the table mark up and math expressions. I've considered whether the final article when done should include the derivation subpages or not, but until the article is finished, I've been addiing them under the understanding that Misplaced Pages is not paper. The final disposition of the derivation tables is still an open issue, but I think they add an encyclopedic value to the article that sets it apart from the many poker probability pages on the Web that are just giving the resulting numbers and not exposing the math behind them. —Doug Bell  08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good answer. I'm impressed. YechielMan 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mutiple merge templates

Thanks for spotting that, fixed. Both are rarely used, and you won't believe the number of templates that redirect or match other templates! Now you suggest migrating to Mergefrom-multiple, and deprecating the other template. I would suggest making the other template a redirect, (once the migrating has been done) otherwise there will still be two distinct syntaxes. I have migrated a couple. Let me know if you see any more incorrect renamings like this. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19 13 February 2007 (GMT).

Actually, they are slightly different, so I just added a note on Template:Multiplemergefrom to redirect people to use Template:Mergefrom-multiple which is a little less typing to use. There still might be reasons to use Template:Multiplemergefrom, but it should be the exception instead of the rule. —Doug Bell  11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

Now I know I've arrived... :) Thanks for the revert! riana_dzasta 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding here as a subsection of Riana's RfA.. no I didn't know. :-/ — Editor at Large 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response To WP:100.

Sorry. I was just checking that page at the time, so I thought I would I would save other users time by updating it myself. Acalamari 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to head off minute-by-minute updates of that page from becoming a norm with in-process !voting. —Doug Bell  02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review: GameTZ.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GameTZ.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ···日本穣 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the humour...

I appreciate the humorous and ironic spirit in which you amended my formatting, but I was intending for it to be a separate sub-section, so I've restored it. I'm hoping your edit was playful in nature, as I'm not sure I want an entry in the lamest edit war ever list. :) Steve block Talk 11:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intended to be humorous. I simply don't see the usefulness in putting an individual opinion in its own section heading. But if that's really important to you, I wouldn't want to infringe on your freedom of expression.  :-/ —Doug Bell  11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was being charitable. When I don't see the usefulness, but also can't see the harm, I tend to shrug and walk away. You're right, I guess it really is really important to me right this second. I live safe in the knowledge that at some point it will disappear from the page by automated archival, only existing in the edit history for posterity. Thank you for refraining from infringing my freedom of expression, I apologise for inflicting it so forcefully. Happy editing and have a nice day. Steve block Talk 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Discussion on AfD

Doug,

It appears that you closed the deletion discussion for Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and the discussion is not available for review. Can that be restored so that it can be visible. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that when Radiant! moved the Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes page, he didn't up date the {{oldmfd}} tag on the talk page. It's fixed now. —Doug Bell  18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurama DVD commentaries

Doug,

• Amazing how the Futurama DVD commentaries got deleted, but The Simpsons DVD commentaries didn't ... Jigsy 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody nominated the Simpsons DVD commentaries for deletion. Arguments that X shouldn't be deleted because Y exists are not valid unless Y has been considered for deletion. In that case, the argument from the deletion discussion for Y could be referred to as a sort of precedent. Although such a precedent might sway people's opinions in the current discussion, XfD discussions aren't bound by any prior precedent. —Doug Bell  20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems a little unfair if you ask me ... *edit* Although nevermind, it's been put up for deletion now. Jigsy 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage userbox MfD

I don't think it was right of you to close that considering you commented on it. Several times. I realise you didn't technically !vote in it, but you definitely made comments that influenced the course of discussion. Your comment that NPOV doesn't apply to userpages was subsequently mentioned by two other users (indeed, most of the later keep arguments paraphrased it in some way). I also note that although you only commented on delete voters, the keep voters' arguments were no better . I don't acscribe this to any ulterior motive, but it does look a bit shady (for want of a better word).
That said, there was a clear consensus to keep and I don't disagree with the deletion itself. -- Steel 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, I see no conflict of interest when participating in a discussion solely for the purpose of trying to keep the discussion on point. BTW, the faulty keep arguments you point to were addressed by my general comment about personal agreement/disagreement with the expressed point of view not being relevant. I also didn't tag the delete arguments based on this reasoning specifically unless they made an incorrect statement regarding NPOV policy, so I wasn't treating keep comments differently than delete comments. —Doug Bell  23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I commend your efforts to ensure people argue with policy-based reasons. "Reasons to keep or delete need to be based on policy, not your personal agreement/disagreement with the statement" is encouraging people to stick to policy. "Just about any statement of position could be considered by someone to be offensive", however, is an argument. "Misplaced Pages is not censored" and "NPOV doesn't apply to userspace" are arguments. You were arguing yourself and you did influence the course of discussion. It was improper of you to close that. -- Steel 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if it seems like I'm accusing you of being biased. I don't believe you had any ulterior motives for commenting specifically on the deletes but just giving a general comment to the keeps. Steel -- 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant that "Misplaced Pages is not censored" was an argument, but say that "NPOV doesn't apply to userspace" was not. The fact of the matter is, I was simply letting people know how their comments would impact the decision on the debate. The NPOV arguments did not carry any weight because they are not in conformance with policy. The "not censored" comment does not fall under the same objective criteria, since in fact user pages are censored to a degree—there are statements which are not allowed on user pages because of the content of the comment (i.e. "all gays should be lynched" would get censored). I will be more careful next time to maintain neutrality or not close the discussion. Thanks for your feedback. —Doug Bell  00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One other point: it's not a conflict of interest to close a debate I've participated in if the consensus is overwhelming. I wouldn't apply that distinction to this particular discussion, but just to clarify my view on what constitutes a conflict of interest. —Doug Bell  00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "NPOV doesn't apply to userspace" is not an argument. It's simply stating policy, yes, but stating policy is the basis for most deletion discussion arguments. I would agree though that it's not always a COI to close discussions that you've participated in - I've done it myself before (one occassion comes to mind where there was a WP:BLP issue). At any rate, the result for the userbox MfD was the correct one. Nice talking to you! -- Steel 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I've just upgraded the date parsing. That should help. If there are still problems, then go here and you can disable that part of the bot. Voice-of-All 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of television episodes with intersex themes

The article List_of_television_episodes_with_intersex_themes was deleted in October 2006. I don't know why it was deleted, but I would like to recover the text. It represents quite a bit of effort, and if it cannot be hosted at Misplaced Pages, there are other homes for it.

Can you get the text for me?

Thanks, Cheryl Cherylchase 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted following a discussion to delete it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of television episodes with intersex themes. I've made the article available here. I will redelete in a couple of days, so get it before then. —Doug Bell  18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Going through some of my old contributions you never got around to deleting it.--M8v2 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hadn;t forgotten about it. I've redeleted it now. —Doug Bell  05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't manage to recover it before you deleted it again. Can you get the text for me?

Thanks, Cheryl 76.21.30.128 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Get it now then. —Doug Bell  21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you.

Thanks

I'm trying to avoid looking at it :) By the way, thanks for all your support during my RfA - you appear to have edited it more times than I have! Feel free to keep an eye on me, and all that. I'm off to bed now - take care! riana_dzasta 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Irishguy

Hi, I moved our back-and-forth to the talk page, hopefully this doesn't cause offense. --W.marsh 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended by you moving the discussion. I would have moved it anyway before responding again, which I have. —Doug Bell  01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moral Supports

He's a 15 year old kid who hasn't got a chance in hell of becoming an admin, yet thought he could succeed. I'm not going to crap all over him and point out the obvious like you and others have done. I'm going to stand by him and let him know that while I don't think he's ready, I admire him for trying and wish him well. Hope that clears up your confusion about my Moral Support vote, in any case. Jeffpw 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You can wish him well by placing your Moral Support in the oppose section, as BigDT did. —Doug Bell  21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When you or another user manage to turn that suggestion into policy (I cannot even find that as a guideline) I will be happy to comply. Until such time, if I choose to morally support a failing nomination I shall place it where I think it will do the affected user the most good. Thank you for your input. Jeffpw 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, it is only a suggestion. It would be a pointless policy. I just find it incredibly insulting to put your comment under Support when you don't mean that you support them becoming an admin. That's like saying "I don't think you are ready to be an admin, but I don't think you have the emotional maturity to hear why, so I'll say one thing and mean another." I find that insulting. —Doug Bell  22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way--you actually said that on the nomination page, too. Under most circumstances I might agree--I should say I have never voted "moral support" before. It's usually just support or oppose with me. But as I said, this is a kid, and very new to Misplaced Pages. he will probably be disappointed and embarrassed when he next comes online and sees how this nomination transpired. I just wanted to let him know some here are encouraging while not actually supporting this particular nom. Jeffpw 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Nu deletion review

There has was no consensus to keep deleted. Article was originally deleted as an attack article. i'm going to relist it on deletion review so a consensus can be reached. The article and subject are very noteworthy. FrozenApe 23:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is required to overturn, not to keep it deleted. The deletion review discussion is about the conduct of the deletion discussion (the AfD) and whether it was properly conducted and the closing admin's judgement of the discussion is supported. It's not a discussion of the merits of the article—that is discussed on the XfD discussion. I've closed the discussion again, please do not reopen. —Doug Bell  00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I restarted the article and it was deleted because it didn't pass the AFD due to lack of strong sources. Another admin told me to wait until the DELREVIEW was completed before I restart the article . The sources were both strong and credible; for the new ones that I used. What determines a consensus. There were a number of wiki's who felt that the article should of been reopened. How can i get the article restarted without it being speedy deleted again or something similiar? what process would i have to go thru? It's not like this is a controversial topic nor are the present sources available poor. FrozenApe 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest working on an article in your user space (i.e. as User:FrozenApe/Alpha Kappa Nu). Once you have the article to the point where the complaints at the previous AfD are addressed, you can move the article to Alpha Kappa Nu. That way you won't have to worry about it being speedy-deleted before you're ready for it to be evaluated. Since it has been deleted through AfD, you should be prepared to defend it should it be renominated. If someone puts a speedy-delete tag on it at that point, I would suggest you bring it to AfD yourself to have it reviewed instead of speedy-deleted. Hope that helps. —Doug Bell  05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article history; It never even made it to the point of being Speedy Deleted . I already started the article and it was simply deleted b/c it failed at AFD. I was told by someone that I should possibly take it to deletion review. Which is what I did. Even if I bring the article to AFD; I wouldn't know what to do. It was already brought to AFD before. What would I say? How do I create User:FrozenApe/Alpha Kappa Nu ? thanks FrozenApe 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've figured out how to start the page in user space. If you are planning on creating an article, I will make the deleted content available to you in your user space. I'm not sure I understand the previous AfD and the reasons it was deleted, but it does seem that there is the basis for a legitimate, encyclopedia article here. I will put a notice on the talk page that should keep the article from being speedy deleted on the condition that you address the concerns from the first AfD. When the article is ready, you can move it back to Alpha Kappa Nu. Just let me know if a) you would like the deleted content; and b) that you are willing to work on this.

I have totally finished the article. . This article drew 2 AFD's. One of them being that it (1) didn't have enough sources, and the second being that it was thought to be an attack article. The problems with one of the AFD's has already been taken care of, but with the other I have serious doubts. The problems that exist for this article will be that it will draw controversy in it's challenge to Alpha Phi Alpha being the first black collegiate fraternity. If you look here which is Black Greek 101: The Culture, Customs, and Challenges of Black Fraternities and Sororities By Walter M. Kimbrough (who is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha) if you can't view it you can look at this print screen to the lower right

. Also in this article "Critics of the organization also say that Alpha Phi Alpha takes credit for being the first black fraternal organization when another organization, Alpha Kappa Nu, was founded first at Indiana University in Bloomington in 1903. That fraternity didn’t have the longevity that Alpha did. but some speculate that it was the forerunner of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity,” says Jason DeSousa, associate professor of advanced studies, leadership, and policy at Morgan State. DeSousa has been a member of Kappa Alpha Psi since 1983. Further, another black fraternity, Sigma Pi Phi, began in 1904, but it was founded as a professional organization, whereas Alpha is collegiate." Although this article is highly referenced. Almost every single sentence has a point of reference. What should I do about it being labeled an attack page? I haven't included Alpha Phi Alpha for that very reason in the article. Any suggestions? FrozenApe 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I would like to have the deleted comment and am willing to work on this article. FrozenApe 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the old article to User:FrozenApe/Alpha Kappa Nu/Original. (I also cleaned up your new version a bit.) Please make your changes to this page in order to preserve the history (this is required by the GFDL). I would include Alpha Phi Alpha in a "See also" section. Also, you might include the photocopy of the book Image:Akn3.JPG on the talk page. I don't think you need to worry about it being speedy deleted. —Doug Bell  19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. Make changes to the akn/original ? If so i put a copy and paste to it. . I also placed the photocopy on the talk page. Where do I go from here in order for it to become a main article and not just on userspace? FrozenApe 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Until more information about this organization is published in reliable sources. I think that this is the best that this article will get without drawing controversy or violating copyright from another source. The only other thing that I can do is list it on african american firsts, black fraternties, black organizations, etc. FrozenApe 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the see also section and did a little other cleanup. I added a note to the talk page that should keep it from being speedy deleted. Just add a comment on the talk page stating what the image is a photocopy of in the evidence section. It would be better to format the external links a references, but you don't have to do that before moving it to article space. —Doug Bell  19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest idea of how to move a page to another page. I'm only skilled at the basics. For the references, maybe I can find someone who can do that since I also don't know how to do anything but external links. I will though right now get the reference to the photocopy right now. thanks for the help. FrozenApe 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is "move" tab at the top of the page next to the "history" tab. For references, they are somewhat more complicated—the link above will take you to a page that explains how to do it. —Doug Bell  16:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

how does the overall page look at this point? FrozenApe 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine. Enough to put back in mainspace. —Doug Bell  16:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assist me. I made a mistake in the move. I moved the talk page to the user page. I realized this and moved the new talk user page to the talk page. I then tried to move the user page to the other userpage, but it says i can't do it now. help. FrozenApe 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect that got created and was blocking. You can do it now. —Doug Bell  16:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health deletion review

I guess I'm still not clear on the process. No one has sufficiently explained the process of consensus. WP:CONSENSUS does a horrible job in describing how it applies to cases like an AfD or a deletion review. I stand firmly on the fact that consensus was not reached to the result you posted. I might be misunderstanding the process, but it appears to me, that Consensus was not reached in favor of opposing the overturn of a deletion. Take note that I'm not as concerened about the future of the article as I am with understanding the process, so any information you can give is appreciated. McKay 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when the AfD closes with 21 for deleting and 3 for keeping and the deletion review closes with one (you, the nominator) for overturning and 6 to endorse the deletion, that's consensus. Sorry. —Doug Bell  05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Satellite Tool Kit - deleted entry

Hi Doug,

I was looking for the Satellite Tool Kit entry and I saw that it had been deleted last October for 'spam'.

Is there any way of getting a copy of the deleted article so that I can make sure it doesn't transgress the submission standards? STK is a pretty specialised software tool that is used throughout the rocket scientist community. A large number of current and future space missions were/are designed using it (all of the international space agencies have at least a copy in their design offices).

Sorry for the bother - and I hope I'm going the right way to recover the information. This is the first time I've tried this, so sorry if I'm getting it back to front.

Thanks in advance,

Emmet EFletcher 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I made the content temporarily available here. I will redelete this in a couple of days, or after you let me know that you've copied it. —Doug Bell  10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've made a copy. You can delete it again. I'll rewrite this in a more constructive way. Many thanks. Emmet EFletcher 10:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. scotch that. I think I need it active so that I can rewrite it (as you can tell, I'm pretty new to all this. Sorry for the RTM comments... Emmet EFletcher 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand why it was originally deleted. Yes, it did look like an advert. I would like to rewrite this entry to look more like the Matlab entry - which is more informative than just a straight advertising tract. I will, of course, defer to the opinions of the administrators - since I want to make sure this meets the submission guidelines. EFletcher 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article to User:EFletcher/Satellite Tool Kit and unprotected it. You can work on it there. When it is fixed up, use the "move" button to move it to Satellite Tool Kit. —Doug Bell  11:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done - finished and moved. I hope this meets the requirements! Thank you very much for your help (and being patient with my newbeeness) EFletcher 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks pretty good—way better than what was there before. I deleted the redirect at User:EFletcher/Satellite Tool Kit. —Doug Bell  18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Messianic Judaism

Deletion was not overwhelmingly endorsed by consensus. The "overwhelming" endorsements were the entire Jewish editing community, not third parties, not the Messianic Jewish editing community, and furthermore, issues regarding this TfD submitted out of process, totally unsourced in its POV dispute, was not addressed. Furthermore, there is no overwhelming endorsement to prevent the template from being recreated, since even the nomination demanded that the template be "recreated." Can you please re-review your decision and tell me how it's a decision reflecting consensus? I thought WP was not a democracy. If it is, then MJ articles will be outvoted by the bigger Jewish editing community every time. inigmatus 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole thing, although admittedly not ever word of the many discussions, but most of it. I don't see anything out of process here. This looks to me to be a content dispute. I would suggest RfC or mediation as a next step if this is a continuing dispute, but there's nothing here for me to reverse my decision on. (BTW, listing something for deletion two weeks after it was kept is not out of process.) —Doug Bell  20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean re-submitting a TfD after a recent keep is acecptable without first going through a review on the prior decision? At the same time though, I don't think protecting the template from recreation was anyone's goal of the TfD. Could you please unprotect the template recreation - even the nominator of the TfD wanted to see the tempalte "recreated in limited form" in his own nomation. Most of us want to work towards consensus, and a template is in fact needed for Messianic Judaism related articles. I will explore other dispute resolution options if consensus can not be reached, but to delete the template outright, in my opinion, was for no substantiated reason. To be honest, what do YOU think of a template that links to other articles related to a template's subject? Is this an illegal template idea? If such a template listed articles that some thought were not relevant to the subject, be a reason for the entire template's deletion? Even more so, could such relevancy be disproven? Even worse, would it be proper to delete such a template that even provided undisputed sources as to the relevancy of certain listed articles? Please reconsider the argumentation. Please undelete the template so that consensus work can be done on it, rather than let it be steamrolled to POV oblivion. A TfD is not what was needed. What was needed was actual discussion on the template's talk page first. Thanks! inigmatus 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the template placeholder. —Doug Bell  04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might find this mildly amusing

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bell. YechielMan 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh! Delete the imposter!  :-) Thanks, —Doug Bell  19:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question...

I was wondering if you'd clarify your statement about activity vs personal statements. Don't you think there is an important difference between saying "articles are controlled", and "User X is controlling articles"? I would say that the former is an activity comment, and that the latter is a personal attack because it names a specific user or users, especially since (in this case) the naming occurs in an area where the named users cannot respond. I'd also add that there is also no proof of the statement given, and perhaps even more interesting is that every accusation made was one that was leveled against him and a proven group of puppets. However, disregarding that and looking only at the statements made, I think there's an important distinction you're overlooking. MSJapan 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking about a user's actions is not a personal attack. It's that simple. —Doug Bell  21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are acting altruistically in this matter, why have you tagged everyone but Frater Xyzzy as being "personally involved in this dispute"? He just came off of a block today for being a sock of Jefferson Anderson, and is as involved as any other person you singled out. - WeniWidiWiki 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Eh, ?

You are free to tag that. I didn't see that name, so I didn't comment on it. Please assume good faith here—I'm not privy to the details of this dispute, so don't expect me to know them. —Doug Bell  18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for being snappy. - WeniWidiWiki 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this gives me some room for proof-of-concept. So if I posted "Doug Bell is a biased administrator" as opposed to "WP has biased administrators" on my userpage, you'd consider that fair? MSJapan 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What's ironic is that I had material from my userpage removed and then protected under the auspices of WP:NPA for far less than this. - WeniWidiWiki 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not equivalent to what is on the user page in the MfD. If you listed specific actions or incidents or pages I was involved in and said these actions he took in this case were biased, that would be fine. If you make a blanket statement about me instead of statements about specific actions or incidents I'm involved in, then that would be an attack. —Doug Bell  18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a arbitrary semantic widening of what an attack is. If I said "such and such admin is corrupt and must have a hidden conflict of interest" I think this would be an attack because it is predicated upon amorphous events which cannot be disputed because the terms are so vague. Don't get me wrong. I realize Jefferson Anderson feels wronged, however he was never much interested in resolution or trying to make any of his problems with other users right. User page polemics are not part of the dipute resolution process. - WeniWidiWiki 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you just said you agree with me...did I get that right? —Doug Bell  19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on the semantic meaning of "attack". I think that your opinions do not reflect actual policy, but policy is so arbitrarily enforced that precedents don't have much truck here. Look into the history of my userpage. Material was removed and it was semi-protected for making a polemic about abstract IP users. If your interpretation of what constitutes "attack" was policy, this would not have been the case. I actually hold your stance on these matters, but feel that this is my only available means of resolving this dispute. Am I right? - WeniWidiWiki 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doug - just in case you don't have the page watchlisted, I have replied to your comment here. Cheers, Yuser31415 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: It's considered common courtesy...

...to notify the author of a page when you nominate it for deletion. I just happened to notice it while looking through the current AfD nominations. —Doug Bell  04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK, sorry about that – Qxz 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Salting

Template MJ was temporarily salted as it was recreated twice during the DRV. Now that the DRV is over, I agree the salting should have been lifted. Thanks. -- Avi 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Humber_tree

Reviewing the edit history of User:Humber_tree, I was considering an indefinite block as the account appears to be vandalism only. Your thoughts? If you think there's a realistic chance that he/she will turn into a constructive user, I'm game to wait and see, but based on the fact that the user not only blanked user pages, but actually used templates makes me suspect that it's an abusive SPA that's probably not going to ever be legit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I already extended it to 24 hours, but indef is probably fine since it's already autoblocked other attempts from the same IP address. —Doug Bell  22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've extended it to indef per our conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the revert :) riana_dzasta 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Poker tables

Did you make the tables in the article up for deletion here? We're a little puzzled.... -- Kendrick7 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by make? Yes, I made the tables. No, it's not my original research. However, I don't know of any reliable source that contains all of the information, probably because it's voluminous. The sourcing is from papers and discussions in probability forums, but those wouldn't be considered reliable sources and most of it has not been "published" in the proper sense. All of the information in the tables is easily verified because after all, it's just math. The "verification" is that the probabilities add up to 1.0. I included a note on the talk page regarding the reasoning behind including the tables, which in part is specifically to provide verification for the tables in the main article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I intend to stay out of the deletion discussion. Hope that helps. —Doug Bell  23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I imagined; and I agree math automatically falls under WP:V. -- Kendrick7 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

{{user recovery}}

I need a copy of my text that was deleted. It was titled "Freque". If you can't repost it could you please send it to me at flower.faeries@yahoo.com

Sorry, but I don't see anything there worth my time on this request. —Doug Bell  00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopelessly rambling

Rather like myself, I suppose. Er... I had a point when I clicked your name, but I've forgotten it now. Anyway, if you want to edit the page, nobody's stopping you. It's not meant to be anything special, I was just fed up of the "failing" vs. "not failing" debate, and wrote it. Delete it if you so wish, I don't mind. I just thought I'd put it up to amuse people and remind them that it's not the end of the world if we don't have a perfect encyclopedia. Thanks – Qxz 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it deleted, I just was making a suggestion for an area where it needs to be improved. I don't have enough interest in it to do it myself. I just didn't think the writing was up to the admittedly not-so-high standards of the Misplaced Pages essays, but not hopelessly so. I think with a little work in structuring, the content could make a decent addition to the essay collection. —Doug Bell  01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Cool. I thought it was just a heap of nonsense :) – Qxz 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of it? It just needs to be a better formed heap of nonsense. —Doug Bell  01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Java (programming language)

Dear Mr. Bell, Can I ask a small favor? There were some acts of vandalism Feb 19 at Java (programming language). I'd revert them myself, but my browsers are acting up today. In particular, User 59.161.41.218 committed two deletions. User TheDarkArchon corrected the 2nd but missed the 1st. Can you help? Thank you, -- JEBrown87544 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at right now. —Doug Bell  04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Doug Bell  04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

why

i hate to ask this but, why did i become pick for this? did i do somehing bad? is this some kinda punishment? please tell me what did i do?--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know "why" somebody nominated your user page for deletion—or at least I don't know what brought them to it in the first place. I see a number of warnings on your page for incivility, so I'm going to guess that was "why". Your page was deleted because it also contained incivil statements. Misplaced Pages is not "MySpace". You might want to familiarize yourself with the following guidelines and policies: civility, user pages, no personal attacks and no attack pages. —Doug Bell  16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliff

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for your words of support on his talk page regarding what happened to him - the definition of what this barnstar means, "being nice without being asked". Thanks. Will (Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Graph

You started the thread that led to the request, so you may be interested in this. Cheers, NoSeptember 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page or indef-block Jimbo - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for all your support throughout the RfA - I really appreciate it. If you have any comments about my use of the tools, I would be more than happy to hear them. Regards, – riana_dzasta 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

My dear Doug Bell, why would I talk about you? I find it funny that you assume I was making my broad statements about you, when I've put all our differences behind us. Why, you are an example of an admin to modelled upon. Thanks for the message, I always like a new discussion, but in this case, you are mistaken... Thanks, Spawn Man 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh & if you delete my messages bar again I'll report you for vandalism. In a nice way of course, just stating the obvious of respecting other's stuff even if it is a "Sttale joke" by your standards. Funny though (In a completely friendly way) that a java programmer thinks he has a better humour than everyone else... Thanks DB! Spawn Man 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You're not starting to twig out a little I hope. I don't follow your line of reasoning above, but I'll just write it off to post-stress release. —Doug Bell  21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I shall accept being "Frowned upon". Thanks for the update... Spawn Man 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, although I wasn't talking aobut you, that is the sort of thing which admins are famous for. Removing stuff from user pages (also termed as... umm.. vandalism) & not saying to the user, "hey, I deleted your joke". What's not to follow above? You delete without consent, you hide the fact you've done so, you recieve a message from Glen saying "Oh thank God" about the deletion of my messages bar & then I get kinda angry? Not much simpler than that... Spawn Man 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hide the fact? I left the edit summary comment. You had "left" Misplaced Pages. These are not generally accepted elements of user and talk pages. It was a straight forward cleaning up of discouraged content from a former user's talk page. No vandalism, no hiding, no reason for you to be angry. —Doug Bell  22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you didn't inform me of either "Hey, I'm going to delete you message bar" or "Hey, I've deleted your message bar". Leaving a summary saying "Deleted message bar as it's a stale joke", isn't suitable for an admin. Plus, it says nothing about the reason you state above about it being frowned upon. I think that you only thought of this now & back then when you deleted it you only wanted to get back at me because of the situation at the time & because it didn't fit your humour. So yes, without leaving a message or a note on my talk, deleting a piece of my talk page is in fact vandalism. If I deleted a piece of your user page, such as a user box, because there has been some controversy about them, & left only an edit summary to note that, would that be vandalism? Yes. You can't just go around deleting things Doug because you don't agree with them. Spawn Man 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Get back at you? For what? I can't think of anything I would have to "get back at you" for. The whole mess you created before leaving wasn't directed at me at all. I was simply trying to mediate a situation you had created with a number of other users. I don't follow this line of reasoning. I think a little assumption of good faith here is in order—I don't have any personal beef with you in the slightest. I think you have personalized events to a great degree where no personal issue has been involved, at least not from my perspective.

As to not leaving a message, your talk page at the time had quite a lot going on. I removed the fake message bar for the reasons above, but didn't want to antagonize the discussion on your talk page any more than had already been done. I'm sorry if not leaving a message offended you, but honestly, no offense was intended and you should take none. Frankly, I had considered asking you to remove it on previous occassions, but you already seemed somewhat antagonistic towards me, so I didn't want to feed your misperceptions and didn't. After you left the project, it was a simple maintenance task to remove it. —Doug Bell  22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, get it when I'm gone. I accept your apology. Just don't touch it again. It's very... special... to me.... ;) You know I get very protective over my message bars. Spawn Man 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Salaami deletion

(Copied from ZaydHammoudeh to put conversation in one place)

You added a tag to Salaami to nominate it for deletion. The tag was added incorrect (I fixed it), but the AfD nomination page was not created. Please refer to step #2 at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion for how to create the AfD notice. You need to provide your rationales for deleting, so I can't do this for you. —Doug Bell  09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Thanks for fixing the request for deletion request on the Salaami article. I am still learning so I copied the header from another article. I guess I messed it up but thanks for the help. ZaydHammoudeh 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't copy headers. Just follow the instructions linked above. They're actually quite simple. —Doug Bell  09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right about not copying. I will not do it in the future. The reason I thought it was correct was because when I nominated a previous article, it seemed to have worked out ok, but now that I tried it again, I can see the previous attempt only went through because iwas an article that had already been deleted but was just reposted anyway. I apologize again for messing up. I will be more careful in the future. However, the two articles I added onto the page Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_23 don't seem to show up. My comments actually got appended onto the two articles above the articles I added. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. (sorry again) ZaydHammoudeh 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't follow the third step in the instructions. Specifically, you didn't paste

{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

into the AfD page. You need to copy the above text exactly, and then

1. replace PageName with the name of the AfD page: Salaami
2. replace Category with the code from this list: B
3. replace Reason the page should be deleted with your reason (the content of the current AfD page).

—Doug Bell  10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it. —Doug Bell  10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have been a pain. I appreciate all of your help. I fixed the other article I nominated for deletion as well. Thanks again. ZaydHammoudeh 10:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Aramco expats

Just to let you know that I sent it to MfD. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I deleted about a zillion prodded user pages, but just a couple, like this one, seemed borderline enough to route to MfD. —Doug Bell  09:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man

Fair call, his tendency for kicking other editors when they are down (Riana and Sarah for example) is certainly text book incivility. Hopefully he begins to think before hitting the Save page button in future. Glen 12:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:TOGoS

Removed {{PROD}} template...maybe active user, page not unreasonable...giving benefit of doubt

You do realize that his last edit was in January of 2006, 13 months ago? --Calton | Talk 12:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he has edited since 2002, albeit very infrequently. Also, there is a "see also" link to another user (perhaps his main identity). —Doug Bell  17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:X loverli

Remove PROD template. We'll just leave the page here for indef banned users as part of the record.

No, they eventually get deleted per WP:DENY. See, for example:

• 00:51, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Scruttox" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:51, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Seagullofwales" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user older than 30 days)
• 00:50, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Sean is gay" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:50, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Secondwyfe" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:50, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Secondwyfe" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:50, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:See?SocksAreUsefull!" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:49, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:HK200606" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:49, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:HK200606" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)
• 00:49, February 8, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Irishboy0100" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)

from here. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Piano wire in popular culture

Dear Mr. Bell:

I believe it was premature of you to delete this article on the basis of a 7 to 3 vote. This deletion is likely to be harmful to the the core article, Piano wire, since the junk edits that previously have safely flowed to Piano wire in popular culture will now land in Piano wire itself. Therefore, I am asking you to undelete Piano wire in popular culture and permit the debate to continue.

Sincerely, Opus33 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not premature, that debate had been open for 7 days. The consensus was clearly to delete, especially when taking the validity of the arguments into consideration. We do not (or I should say, strive to not) have articles puely for the purpose of "keeping junk" out of another article. The junk should simply be deleted.

If you still believe that my closing was not based on correct procedure or a correct reading of the consensus and evaluation of the arguments presented, you can request a deletion review. —Doug Bell  19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I probably agree with the deletion (Piano wire in pop culture? Come on...) if we multiplied both numbers by ten to come to the tally of 70 to 30, would you still close if the vote was on an RfA or the likes? 70 to 30 is bearly a consensus. Spawn Man 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not a bureaucrat, so I don't close RfAs. Second, the practice of determining consensus is not the same for XfD and RfA. —Doug Bell  10:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted:

Thanks for blocking me Doug Bell. However, a bigger thank you goes to being man enough about apologising or at least admitting that my situation was handled with incivilty. That's all I really wanted & it's helped me move along from the issues that were unresolved for me. Thanks & I promise to try harder now. I've placed a message on my user page to let me & other's know my progress to becoming a civil wikipedian & will probably keep me hopeful. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I had acknowledged earlier—if not to you then to someone else—that those particular comments to you on your page were not civil. I don't apologize for the comments, because as I've said, I think what I said, despite its incivility, needed to be said at that point in order to put the entire sordid affair into context and hopefully bring it to a close. I have no problem admitting that the comments were incivil, and as I said to you in the past, making the comments brought me no satisfaction. I repeat that I have no personal issue with you, and if my latest comment on your talk page regarding my comments helps bring closure on the subject for you, then I'm glad for it. —Doug Bell  01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

MFD

Done, and done. Cheers! >Radiant< 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Doug Bell  10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurist move

Doug, thanks for your quick action on the Futurist move request.--Hgebel 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein

I'm not to keen on the outcome of this Afd as the subject is being systematically deleted from Misplaced Pages. I appreciate that you specifically left the option open for new articles on the topic, however User:Omegatron had in my opinion provided sufficient sources to demonstrate that Denny Klein meets WP:BIO. I had delsorted it last night, wrote an article about the journal (to check it was kosher) and I was just about to comment on the utility in keeping articles about people claimed to be kooks and where verifiable information is available. Finally I would like to point out that Fleischmann and Pons both have an article, which undermines your reasoning for the article about the person to be deleted. Please reconsider the deletion, and if you have any specific concerns about statements in the article that you considered to be POV, let me know and I will trim the article and keep an eye on it. John Vandenberg 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

1. The Fleischmann and Pons bios are not a good comparison as their well-publicized claims gained visibility far beyond the meager claims to notability provided for Klein.
2. If you think an article about Klein is warranted, then presumably an article regarding his claims would be warranted. Since the bulk of the content in the bio was about the claims, with almost no biographical information about Klein, my decision was straight forward.
3. I haven't been involved in the previous discussions, and although I gave my impression of the technology on the AfD, it is not an informed opinion on it. The veracity of the claims was not relevant to the decision on the bio.
4. All that should be required to establish a basis for an article on the claims is independent reporting. My take on this from reading through this is that the case for claiming a basis is borderline, but perhaps sufficient. However, unless more solid references can be found than the single journal citation, any article would need to discuss the claims, as reported by independent third parties, and not adopt the claims as true.

—Doug Bell  21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding #2 first; I do believe an article about the technology is important, esp. as attempts have been made in the past to write about them (I wasnt involved then either so it is hard to know whether they were serious attempts). All I can see is that this article was getting off to the right start by introducing lots of references, and IMO it had already crossed the WP:BIO criteria. The majority of the Verifiability and Notability justification was provided by Omegatron, in the form of:

• CNN (WTVT?)
• Fox News television broadcasts
• Fox Chicago
• Tampa Tribune
• St. Petersburg Times
• WAVE 3 twice (local news)

Regarding #4, the article was being worked on to come to a NPOV stance, and our IP contributor was not hindering this which was IMO a very good sign. I definitely agree with you on #3 and #1 (my use of the word undermined was a tad melodramatic but I was at loss to find a better word quickly), but I still hold that this person and technology is in the media, and articles are being repeatedly written and deleted. It may not be on the same scale as Fleischmann and Pons, but the principle of documenting people involved in dubious claims has precedent. John Vandenberg 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

<sigh>(only because I knew why nobody else wanted to close this AfD...)
I'll refer you to the nominator's final comment regarding the "reliable sources" and their relevance to the bio. However, the big problem is that the article was not properly a bio. That made the decision to delete it striaght forward. As I said in my closing statement, I'm willing to provide the deleted article for the purposes of writing either a neutral article on the claims or even a neutral bio on Denny Klein, although I think the notability claims for Klein are thin. The article as written was effectively an article on his claims masquerading as a bio, thus it was deleted. I wasn't going to support a move given the previous AfD history. —Doug Bell  22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, throw it on my user space at User:Javdb/Denny Klein, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks for leaving that option open. I'd be more than happy to notify you when its done, so you can take a look before moving it to the main namespace, if you like. John Vandenberg 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's there. This is not an open-ended lease on parking this in user space. Also, do not create any redirects from article space to this article while it is in user space. —Doug Bell  23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV of The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Celithemis 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonnie Stewart Deletion

Doug,

I was informed by our Webmaster that my wikipedia page was deleted, under the reason of "non-notable" and "vanity".

May I address this with you?

1. Yes, the photos were from my collection and uploaded by ME....this was done as the behest of the AWA Webmaster in order to help him create the page. Did I answer his questions for the Wiki page? Yes. How would you like him to verify that? If he wrote, "Interview with Jonnie Stewart" some would call it dodgy. Right? I had him verify most info but that didn't seem to satisfy the vultures. They even resorted to vulgar vandalism....and you take these voters seriously? Why?

2. As far as notability. I worked on national TV (the AWA on ESPN) for two years, as the second heel under Larry Zybysko. Six ESPN Main Events and one for the AWA LT. Heavyweight Title against Buck Zumhoffe. I have been an active wrestler for twenty years, and I DO own 10% of the AWA currently and I AM the Executive Vice President. We have over twenty affiliates around the WORLD. Small time INDY promotion???? REALLY??? And I was partially responsible for some of the most attended indy productions in the last ten years in wrestling, actually beating out WCW on four occasions. Out drawing WCW, with their million dollar stars and advertising....NOT NOTABLE???? IE (5,200 people August 1999 Pine Bluff, AR, Civic Arena, 4,850 people Delaware State Fair in 2001, 6,300 people Red Rock State Park Arena Red Rock, CA in 2000)...this isn't a NOTABLE promoter????

I received NATIONAL headlines both TV and print media for my run for US Congress and the Jon Stewart mix-up. THAT isn't notable????? Being on the O'Reilly Fator, Hannity and Colmbs, CNN, CBS Morning Show isn't notable? Really? Hmmm....

How many times has a pro wrestler been on the FRONT SPLASH page of AOL???????? How many pro-wrestlers have had a feature article on their life in a little paper known as the NEW YORK TIMES?????? Really Doug....their names are who????? Jon Stewart and Hulk Hogan. Yes....I know that I am no where near Hulk Hogan but it DOES validate the uniqueness.

I am sorry it was lengthy.....how galling it must have been for the Wikipeida users to trudge through my page, I'll say ten novenas. I am also sorry that some of the voters weren't even born when my heyday happened in the AWA, I am forty, not twnety-two. I also love the "editors" who know nothing of me but know for a FACT that I dont' have a stake in the AWA or that this didn't happen or that. did anyone ever try to call the AWA and verify. It seems Jon Stewart and VICE PRESIDENT are all over the AWA official webpage.

The Wiki page was important to my future college speaking jobs and future runs for political office....if I have the AWA webmaster make a shortened page will that satisfy the WIKI voters?

Otherwise...this is a complete injustice.

Thank you for your time and your consideration. And please forgive my tongue-and-cheek demeanor. I always thought of myself as a realist and grounded but some "editors" make me out to be a liar and a fake. If you like to write me to discuss this, please do so at jonalanstewart@aol.com

Sincerely,

Jon Alan Stewart Executive Vice President - AWA Wrestling Entertainment Former Candidate, US Congress —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonalanstewart (talk • contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Mr. Stewart,

As noted in the closing statement, it was a borderline case of notability for your bio. I based my decision on the arguments presented, not on my own opinion in the matter. If you believe that the information used for evaluation was not accurate or complete, or if you believe that my assessment of the arguments presented was incorrect, you may appeal my decision by requesting a deletion review. Note that the decision is unlikely to be overturned unless you can show that the basis for the decision was flawed—the import of the page to your professional activities is not a consideration.

If I can be of further assistance please don't hesitate to ask. —Doug Bell  02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug, 3 of this users 4 edits were vandalizing my userpage. Just thought I would point that out. TJ Spyke 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, thanks for pointing that out. I would suggest to Mr. Stewart that that behaviour will not be helpful to his cause. Rather than personalize this, I suggest he take a calm and reasoned approach. I think he will find that people are receptive to that and that if a mistake has been made in this determination, that the facts, when presented without the color of emotion, will hold sway. —Doug Bell  02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avy Scott

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avy Scott

Please avoid editorialising in the manner that you did in closing this debate. It's highly disputable that this article "easily passes" the guideline, and it's bad form to make an "official" position on something that doesn't have consensus. - brenneman 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but editorialising in a closing statement is not only acceptable, it is preferrable to provide the reasons behind the decision instead of merely giving the decision. So you are simply incorrect on what is good form. —Doug Bell  02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not clear on "editorialising" as opposed to summarising, weighing arguments, or interpreting policy. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report is bad form. That's what you did here. Your personal opinion that she "clearly passes" isn't supported either by the debate, or by the actual content of the guideline that you reference. - brenneman 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with both your assessment of the nature of my comment and with your assessment of the consensus in the discussion. —Doug Bell  02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of Dorian Gray

No, I didn't mean to disparage your deletion, but the article is question had a different title and different content than the one originally nominated, so it really was not the same article. Admittedly, I should have gone to DRV, but to me it was a pretty obvious WP:SNOW, and I didn't feel like dealing with the red tape. All the votes to delete (include my initial one) mentioned the pop cultural references as the problem, and they were quite right. All of those were removed, and with the new title referring only to adaptations of the novel, there is little likelihood of them being added back (at least to this article, I suspect they'll be popping up in the novel's). What we have left is an article on the films based on Dorian Gray (almost all of which have no article of their own, making this article unecessary, even). To be honest, I also was hesitant to invoke DRV because there seemed to be a slight chance that the review might endorse the previous version as being kept, due to so many different suggestions being made, and a keep being the default result, at times. So that's my reasoning. If you honestly feel the article in its current state is a serious candidate for deletion, let me know and I can perhaps redelete it and go to DRV, but it just seems very unecessary to me. In any case, the redirect The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture has remained deleted, as it should. -R. fiend 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I thought you were aware that it is under deleteion review. My comment to you was simply regarding your undeletion comment, which seemed to imply that I had gone off and deleted a different article than the one nominated for AfD, where the real issue is that the article nominated for AfD was moved during the AfD. —Doug Bell  18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt DRV close

Just wanted to let you know that I am willing to close (or help close) the DRV. I feel like I am pretty apolitical on the wiki and I don't really have any strong feelings about Daniel Brandt or the Arbcom case, but I have been following both closely. IronGargoyle 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the more help the better. My only concern with adding admins to the closing is the additional logistic issues created. —Doug Bell  21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jiffy

It was pretty apt and clever, though, eh? :) No worries though. It's all good. --Jayzel 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User page PRODs

• User:Rnman:

Remove PROD template. Content of page is modest

The content includes a blog link. Is there a "modest link farms" exception to WP:USER I missed?

• User:RudaMoura

Remove PROD template. Use has edited within last month; content of page is modest.

User contributions:

• 21:07, February 16, 2006 - XUnit (→A Partial List of xUnit Frameworks)
• 15:24, August 27, 2004 - User:RudaMoura

That's an awfully long month, there. And is there a "modest link farms" exception to WP:USER I missed? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I misread the contrib history of RudaMoura—I've deleted that one. The other one, yeah maybe, but I decided to give the benefit of the doubt. I delete something like 98%+ of the user pages you nominate, but I do check each one out. Sometimes my criteria may differ. —Doug Bell  02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection to your unblock of User:Jayzel68

So the user issues a profane retort and says "Get it through your skulls," and you unblock him, without even discussing it with the blocking admin? That's terrible. I couldn't object more strongly. The user still refuses to admit that he waved a legal threat at another user. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for not discussing it with you—I didn't take from your comments on the page that you had any personal interest in the matter beyond the retraction of the statement, so I didn't think you would object. Jayzel stated more than once that no legal threat was intended. The profanity is really not germane to the reasons behind the block. You may of course post on WP:AN/I if you think that a broader evaluation of the block is warranted. —Doug Bell  20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to AN/I. The issue is that Jayzel isn't retracting the statement; he's claiming that it wasn't a legal threat in the first place, which I find a completely bogus explanation (discussions of "libel" and hoping the other user has a strong "case?" Come on). I won't re-block, but at the same time I think we've just rewarded a user for forum-shopping and really taken a nice dent out of WP:NLT too. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to your characterization of my unblock being a result of "forum-shopping". After initially being approached, I completely supported your action. I'd appreciate if you'd assume good faith. —Doug Bell  21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)