User talk:UncleDouggie/Archive 1

Thank you

Thank you for correcting the links in Security Now! However, if you had spent the time to do this in the first place, instead of just breaking the link you didn't like, this whole problem could have been avoided. Please consider the work of others before editing in the future. NipokNek (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Trigence

Hi, I replied on my talk page. SF007 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Desktop virtualization

Uncle Douggie,

Why did you remove my blog about VECD ? This was not an advertisement.

Who are you, which company do you work for ?

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the link for now. I removed it because you've spammed this article multiple times in the past. While your latest link isn't spam, the material should be incorporated into the article instead with references to reliable sources. However, given the sad state of this article and the fact that the same problem exists with the other ELs, we might as well retain this EL temporarily until the article can be improved. Having this type of material in an EL presents lots of problems, from the misleading title to the grammar errors in your article, all of which is out of the control of Wikipedia and its editors. Who I am and who I work for aren't any of your business. I suggest you review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you're not clear on this point. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we not have external links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please go read WP:EL and then tell me why you think a link is justified. If you feel strongly about adding the licensing info, please add it into the body of the article so others can expand on it. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you UncleDouggie, I've been reading the guidelines so apologies for the external links. I've added VECD and I plan to add more useful content around many of the issues faced with virtualisation. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My Editor is currently writing a product page for Wikipedia which I can link in to the document —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I urge you to also read WP:COI and WP:NPOV. The trend I see in all your edits is self-promotion, which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. What we need is for editors such as yourself to contribute their knowledge to improving the quality of articles that you have expertise on without regard to your products. This might help the industry, which you may benefit from indirectly. If you don't want to do this, just go buy an ad somewhere and say whatever you want. UncleDouggie (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes agreed but from my POV simply mentioning our name in a non-biased fashion as a service provider isn't self-promotion. Nearly every wiki page I see mentions the name of products and refers to their associated wiki links. All previous promotional links have been removed regarding cost savings and other benefits, the article I wrote on VECD has come directly from our blog. My purpose was to write a non-biased article on VESK as we have trademarked the name and service and would like it to be a registered product on Wikipedia. From here we can link other articles to it. And yes I totally agree the purpose of Wikipedia is not for self promotion or advertising but I am only contributing in a positive manner to the content of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is self-promotion as you will see in reading WP:COI. If we let this happen, the article would be filled with 1000 links to service providers, which is why we don't allow it. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that just happens to be edited using a wiki. It's not a wiki nor a blog where anything goes. We have no registered products. To have an article, the subject must be WP:NOTABLE. Just because you see other articles that aren't in compliance isn't license for you do the same thing. We delete hundreds of pages a day, but we don't catch them all right away. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you truley do have a mamoth task on your hands ! We used to collocate servers for one of the busiest SMS chat platforms in the UK and I thought the moderation was epic with just that platform. We used to run 3 x 8 hour shifts ever day for the moderators and mod supervisors, we ended up outsourcing to India but then we had all the problems of grammar alterations and miscommunication of certain words so I can't begin to imagine the admin task of moderating something like Wikipedia.

Ok well in that case I will mention my immediate reaction to your previous message and after reading COI it states "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" so with this in mind I would say that the large editorial I wrote on the important issue concerning VECD shows my interest in this subject and simply mentioning VESK once as small part of a service (without mentioning any benefits) show that my 'aim' is more imprtantly concerning VECD than it is in advertising VESK. I have worked with Nicole Zinnerman who is the head of licensing for MS in the UK and the only issue stopping companies from implementing desktop virtualisation is VECD. I have given talks on the subject (even though my grammar could do with improving :-)) and am present at all the virtualisation conferences.

If you, as a moderator, still feel that there is COI then I will leave this subject alone and respect your greater experienced opinion. However I would be pleased if you could consider the above. Once again thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual desktop (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that VECD is important and should be in the article. I thank you for adding it. However, the job isn't complete. As I tagged your new section, we require references to reliable sources for all material. Please add the appropriate references. For such an important topic, I'm sure there has been coverage in industry publications. The line you quoted out of WP:COI doesn't mean that you can have 5 self promotional words in exchange for adding 100 non-promotional words. If you doubt this interpretation, you're welcome to post the issue at WP:COIN and get opinions from other editors. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Your recent post appears to have reverted the noticeboard to an older version, with the result that several recent posts are now missing, and several archived posts have been readded. I noticed that one of my posts was removed and restored it without then seeing the larger problem. I don't have time at the moment to fix it; could you do so please.-gadfium 06:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I just did a simple edit, honest. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to cook dinner.-gadfium 07:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Header

Hi UncleDouggie, I have responded to your request here. Please advise if there are any further issues with it, as I don't have a copy of Safari to test the fix. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I've dropped it down to s-protection, so have at it! :-) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Ack, that's embarassing. I've unprotected the correct page now! Please let me (or another admin) know when you're done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

Great, thanks for your assistance =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

1968–69 WCHL season

Don't mind me... I first declined the speedy thinking you wanted to move the article to 1968–69 Western Canada Hockey League season, which would have been controversial. I thought about it later, and realized that wasn't what you meant, but accidentally forgot to use the endash. It should be better now, lol. Thank's for pointing out my error. Resolute 01:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Virtual file server

I saw you prodded this article because it seemed like an advertising vehicle. I fixed it up, added some references, took out the vendor list and based on that removed the prod. But I am not all that comfortable with the result. My knowledge of this stuff is dated to say the least, and it is puzzling that the concept was not covered already. Maybe there is another article that covers the same subject. Do you know of any project, discussion group, whatever that reviews this sort of topic? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

archives and CoI

I notice you were involved in a recent discussion about archives at the WP:CoI policy. I was wondering if you could please have a look at a couple of the questions I've asked about this that were raised to me by people in the industry: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Archives_exception_-_clarification_please Sincerely, Witty Lama 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who wudda thunk?

Hello UncleDouggie. Thank you for your support on my RFA. I especially liked your reasoning. Who wudda thunk that having a crappy user page was a plus. That made my day. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MLA

Done, and more added. This is actually more of an issue than articles on objects, which as far as I can see are rarely created by MLA people - they prefer to do that on their own sites first. But the publicity people often want to spam their links. I think "What about famous works?" and What if I don't have enough evidence of notability? should be rolled into the bits above them. What about famous works? is really rather a non-question, as of course they are ok, as are very many non-famous works with decent bibliographies. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that what will happen in the future will tend to repeat what has happened in the past. If that turns out to be wrong, of course adjustments can be made. To be blunt, I don't entirely understand the "famous" para, & insofar as I do it is somewhat misleading. In the last "It is fine if you have found a work to be notable enough for inclusion in your collection and your institution is recognized by the academic community as an authority on the subject." is rather unclear, and does not address the issue, which is essentially verifiability and 3rd party sources. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the sentence I've quoted adds, & it introduces other concepts (eg notability) in a confusing way. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's better, but there are still a number of issues the phrasing opens, which I expect will confuse MLA readers. "you are not a third-party source about your display of a work." - firstly articles should avoid emphasis on "display" (which may change without notice) in favour of possession. Secondly on concrete physical facts the museum is typically much the best source. Take for example the simple issue of the dimensions of a painting. It is a mistake to prefer measurements given by a 3rd party source to those of the museum itself, who obviously are the only people allowed to approach the work with stepladder and tape measure. "if the institution is recognized by the academic community as an authority on the subject" - may not be the issue; many small museums will bring in a specialist from outside to curate or write material for catalogues etc if they don't have it themselves. For big exhibitions even the largest ones commonly do this for at least some of the work. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack

I didn't attack him. I just made a sarcastic joke about him and besides he's my friend.--86.41.72.188 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

advice for the cultural sector

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your assistance in creating WP:GLAM, thank you Witty Lama 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Rollback tool

No, I'm not using a new tool, in fact I use a version of that tool (that page is for the tool in pt.wikipedia). The script is here and exist since 2006. Is a very old tool.. XD

Best Regards, Béria Lima ^Msg 14:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, when the WikiGuard be usable again, i can test? Béria Lima ^Msg 14:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have Twinkle too, but I more fan of Huggle, but, as a can't use Huggle here (because I not a Rollback user) 'im using my old, but working, reverting tool

And if that tool works in pt.wiki too is better, i kwon some users that can join us in the "test". Béria Lima ^Msg 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two SO, Windows and Ubuntu, not Mac Is't imposible use WikiGuard in other SO, or just never been tested? Béria Lima ^Msg 15:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am Tw3435

This is not test edit! I am Tw3435 but I don't login. And don't go back so far. I am doing the mission I need about 2-3 days on doing then I will delete it all like before. And a user on Wikipedia told me to put in my userpage. I will delete it tomorrow if I can.--125.25.81.131 (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Have u notice that only Thai IP's is editing this userpage?--125.25.81.131 (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD Wissner Piano Company

Hi there! I noticed your proposed CSD of Wissner Piano Company on G12 grounds. However the alleged copyright violation occurs in the context of directly quoting the copyright holder as a source, with full attribution. The article creator, Richard Arthur Norton, appears to have a history of having his articles nominated for deletion in bad faith. I was wondering if you could explain why you felt this article required speedy deletion? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, given your history on Wikipedia, I think it's unlikely you're acting in bad faith, and I'm positively assuming that you are in fact in good faith. It's just that (a) the nomination seems completely inexplicable and (b) it beggars belief that every article Richard starts could attract such improbable and unwarranted CSDs so quickly, I'm wondering if there's something going on I'm unaware of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any history with Richard. I saw the article in the recent changes feed and it's obvious that 100% of the article body is from the copyrighted source. Attributing the copyright holder doesn't give us the right to copy their text. I don't see how this qualifies as fair use. --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"100% of the article body" amounted to three factual statements, one being who founded the company, the second being the location of its factories, and the other being the year it went out of business. I've just done a reword to make sure it's not the same text as the source and the only way to do that was by reversing the word order in the sentences; although I still hold that it would be appropriate to retain the exact same phrasing when it's a factual statement directly attributed to a source. You might revisit the article and reconsider your nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed up the article since you feel so strongly that it should be saved. This required removing the full quote from the reference since that was a blatant copyright violation. I didn't bother with it initially because I saw it was created by an experienced editor who should have known better. --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering! It may ultimately be the case that the article comes up for deletion on WP:N grounds but I certainly felt a speedy was not appropriate. It was also my understanding that citations could quote whole text, within limits, as fair use because they are attributing the statement to the source for the purpose of reporting, critical analysis or one of a number of the other fair use clauses, but I'll leave Richard to argue that if he really feels he needs the whole text there. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is somewhat open to interpretation of course. In this case, the quote contained 100% of the content of the referenced material and there wasn't any critical analysis added in the Wikipedia article. I don't think we could have possibly won that case. --UncleDouggie (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:welcoming vandals

Well, even vandals should get resources on how to contribute better! :) I tend to try and avoid sockpuppet names etc though. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Upload Photos

Dear UncleDouggie,

Good day ,

I would like to add photos to some pages which are interesting with my family history , such coat of arms , old photos etc, how i can do that ? can u guide me ? bcz i dont have any power for upload photos , can u fix that ?

thanks in advance and sorry if i get your too much time with my this message ,

all the best , leon kinyaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonkinyaz (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link for uploading. Please read the page carefully, especially about using Commons for free images. You will need to wait 4 days from when you created your Wikipedia account before you will have permission to upload images. If you want to upload to Commons, log in there now because it has a separate 4 day clock I believe. --UncleDouggie (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit Filter

1. Each edit filter is set up only to do one thing. (If an edit doesn't meet a "Disallow" filter, in other words, it doesn't warn.) Also, not all edit filters are set up to warn or disallow.

   We need to analyze the Edit Filter as a complete system, not a list of individual filters. Many edits trigger multiple filters as shown here. Note that the edit at :48 was saved and subsequently rejected by a PC reviewer. This is not an endorsement of PC. Quite the contrary: If filter 61 had an action of PC, the bad edit would have been caught without applying PC to all IP edits. While that might not be the perfect use of filter 61 as it now stands, hopefully you get the idea. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   There is no such thing as a perfect antivandalism system, and both you and I know that. However, that edit, if its filter were set to disallow, would in and of itself induce several different false positives because there's just no way to filter that sort of vandalism without excessive false-positives from things such as courtesy-blanking attack pages in prep for G12, slimming down excess baggage from an article, and removing bogus or dead references. PC would not help that. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Most of the edit filters I worked on or examined used regular expressions or a variant thereof, which stops several variants of common vandalism in the first place. (Also, vandals regularly report on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives, in effect making that page a bozo-filter).

   But it doesn't stop them. They keep going until they sneak something through. Then everyone gets upset and the PC the World drum beats louder. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   That is the reason we have active edit filter managers whom keep an eye out when these things happen and edit the filters to close the loophole. However, absolutely no form of antivandal measures will stop every last bit of vandalism. Expecting to do so is akin to catching water with a sieve. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

3. There is presently no way to oversight edit filter logs, thus making its use on BLPs impracticable.

   I didn't realize this. A minor technical hurdle that needs to be corrected regardless of PC. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   This, however, makes merging PC and the edit filter impracticable. Until it's fixed, every potentially-libelous filter log action - including edits a PC filter would catch - will end up publicly-viewable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Even the one of the most commonly-tripped edit filters (anons blanking talk page sections) sees false positives on a bidaily, if not daily, basis because of IPs wanting to retract or revert their creation of a new section on a user's talk page in good-faith.

   The Edit Filter will never be perfect. Adding the option of PC will give filter designers more options for constructing effective filter sets. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   You'd be surprised to know that the reverse is the case. Using PC would actually hinder the development of constructive filter sets because PC (at present and as has the majority vote on the straw poll) is not standard on all articles, meaning that filters to take advantage of it have to be written specifically for those pages that have it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

5. There is an option to strip userrights or block users with the edit filter, but no filter does this because of the false positive issues.

   I'm glad we don't use this feature. Adding a PC option to the Edit Filter may even stave off calls for more drastic actions to be enabled. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   Adding a PC option would not be implemented for the reason above and my third point (EF logs not being oversightable).

—Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! All responses in-line above. --UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And responses likewise MST'd above. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond to your specific points, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing because I see now how my quick explanation of modifying the Edit Filter could have possibly been misinterpreted.

My proposal is to not have any articles designated exclusively for PC. Instead, we start with the process as it was before the PC trial began and merely add an option on all filters to invoke PC for an edit in place of warn or disallow. It would of course be possible to construct a rule invoking PC on all anonymous BLP edits, but this would not be the intent of the system. Heck, all BLP IP edits could be disallowed right now, subject to the edit filter firing limits. In place of blanket PC protection, we would be free to construct elaborate regular expressions in an attempt to flag only high-risk changes for PC. It will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve the current system.

If this was already your understanding, just let me know and I'll then respond above. Also, please consider how my proposal could be used to disrupt the vandal workflow I referenced on the straw poll page without subjecting good IP edits on that article to PC. We are in a war and we need to continually adapt to vandal countermeasures without impacting good edits. --UncleDouggie (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The "war" mentality didn't do me any good when I was an admin, and it still does not to this day. And it wouldn't disrupt the vandal workflow because, once the details of a filter are known, it becomes far too easy to dodge until edited again - User:JarlaxleArtemis' constant attacks on administrators demonstrate that plenty. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The logical extension of this argument is to remove the EF entirely. Is this your position? My use of the term "war" was meant to refer to the continuous countermeasure strategy needed – I didn't mean we should get into arguments with users. Is my EF proposal now clear? --UncleDouggie (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I think you have got distracted by this "war" issue. UncleDouggie asked Jeremy an important question - Do you understand the proposal? I get the impression that Jeremy doesn't understand it, based on the statement "Using PC would actually hinder the development of constructive filter sets because PC is not standard on all articles". The proposal is that rather than pages having to be set to pending changes protection, edits to any page could be converted into a pending change by the edit filter. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be akin to a Wikipedia-wide rollout, Yaris, which does not have anywhere near the support necessary. Most supporters of PC are well aware that there would be serious manpower problems if it were rolled out throughout all of en.wp. (Also, as I noted above, such a filter would, by necessity, need constant tweaking as edit filters are far too easy to dodge compared to semi-protection.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't know how much support there would be for this proposal because the question hasn't been asked. I agree that there is insufficient support for blanket implementation of the current version of PC on all articles, but that's not my proposal. There are many safeguards that could be put in place such as firing limits and community review of PC filters. It seems that Jeremy prefers to use semi-protection, which would still remain an option. The feedback from the trial even indicated that there were many situations where semi-protection would have been more appropriate. I still believe that adding the PC option to the EF would reduce the number of cases where semi-protection is needed, reduce the reviewing workload, and most importantly disrupt the vandal workflow on all articles in a way that no other current or proposed method can achieve. The trial feedback did indicate that vandals tended to migrate from PC protected articles to those not protected by PC, which shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. --UncleDouggie (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose PC as is, but I support your idea and encourage Option 1 voters to consider this compromise if it is proposed in the future.....--Gniniv (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you for your ingenious compromise to the Pending Changes debate! Gniniv (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gniniv! I've never seen this Barnstar before, but I like it and I wish we could give it out more often. --UncleDouggie (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, please see Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics and Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thanks. Australian fighter (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Block?

For what reasons exactly?--Beckerich (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I see now that it's really an edit war. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA question

By any chance was it related to this? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I thought you would figure it out eventually. Once you get your bit, you might consider deleting the file. Users get even more upset about blocks than rollbacks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean "if I get the bit". I know full well that this RFA can still fail. The only thing guaranteed here (barring a whole bunch of supporters doing an about face) is my place at WP:100. There's still that potential RFA killing mistake I made answering Uncle G's questions that hasn't been noticed. (yet) As far as the picture is concerned, perhaps you're right. It is from 2002. (I also might move it to commons) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're at 86% and Oppose #5 lays out exactly why you have no worries. The supports aren't going anywhere no matter what Uncle G pulls on you. Everyone except Uncle G understands that they are trick questions. I wouldn't take time to answer anymore of his questions either, you're not going to find the rainbow. He's had more than his fair share of input to your RfA. His support to date on the actual RfA page has been very helpful. He's just messing with you at this point; if he wanted to sink you he would have already done it. When the torpedo hits, just thank him very much for his insight and promise to learn from this and all future criticism. If perfection was a requirement, we wouldn't have any admins. Personally, I'd delete the file outright. It's not used anywhere else and probably won't be once you have a bit. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one thing I have to agree with. He's been helpful and tried to make people think about their !votes. He does the same thing on AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Debate on Jimbo's Talk Page

I thought you would be interested about this debate that is active concerning WP:PC on Jimbo Wale's talk page. I inserted the compromise that you proposed as a potential solution, and I'm sure your voice would be very helpful in providing a resolution.--Novus Orator 05:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, just when I was getting back to more content work, here comes the PC drama beast again! Seriously though, thanks for the plug, it's nice to know that some people are interested in reasoned debate. Guess I better get over there before my great idea gets drowned by a few hundred more comments. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki

Hi, your conduct on his userpage is not helping very much. Engaging in the same behavior is not the way to go about doing this, and it is unlikely to help. Instead, it appears that you are baiting him. Please engage in rational discussion rather than imitating what his actions are. (X! · talk)  · @187  ·  03:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a dozen rational messages from me on his talk page, which haven't helped very much. I decided to try one last thing, which obviously didn't work either, so I've given up. I think it is clear from his response that he didn't consider it baiting at all, because we've seen what he does when really baited. I wouldn't normally do this to anyone, but it is an exceptional case. I hope you have better luck with some other approach. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism detection competition report in the Signpost?

Hi, just saw your interesting report. It might make a good addition to the upcoming Signpost issue, which will be published later today (UTC), e.g. here. Do you mind if I adopt your text? Would you recommend further changes for that purpose? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I would suggest adding a one or two line summary of my proposal further up that page to make clear that it is potentially possible to combine automated detection with pending changes review to minimize vandalism without forcing manual review of all changes. In fact, maybe that's the one liner right there! Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We will probably try to keep the Pending Changes coverage separate, to the "News and notes" section which already covers the current poll.

By the way here is some interesting current discussion about other vandalism detection tools (which appear not to have participated).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to STiki. I have added it to my proposal page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Nomination

Hi! You have demonstrated a strong commitment to keeping Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. Because of your work and background, I would like to nominate you for being a WP:Administrator. If you accept, please answer below so I can begin the RFA...--Novus Orator 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honored. However, you may have missed this in my edit history. I really want to get back to doing more content work and I'm afraid that being an admin would distract me even more than all the discussions I seem to wind up in already. I've only run into a few cases where having admin tools would have been very useful – deleted contributions for one – and the thought of going through RfA is not pleasant. I seem to be taken seriously in all the policy discussions in which I participate even with my lowly "editor" hat. Although, I must say that having my request for edit filter manager permission languish unanswered for nearly a week is getting a bit old. Still, I think the RfA grinder would spit me out with barely a burp. My participation hasn't been very consistent over the years due to serious meatspace demands, and the rest of this year isn't looking very good on that front. I especially won't have very much time for the next week. I will reconsider if someday you find two co-nominators, including someone who has survived the grinder and lived to tell the tale. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't make a bad admin, your contributions speak for themselves and your responses have generally been concise and you always take a calm/cool/moderate approach, I haven't witnessed any outbursts from you, you haven't received warnings (if not ever). Recognised content isn't everything, we've had admins who haven't had GAs, FAs etc. but they got promoted because of their other work, CSD saves, AfD discussions and so forth. Overall there wouldn't be any harm in you taking up the tools. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:47pm • 11:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Fridae'sDoom, for your kind words. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, though back onto the subject of adminship would you still be willing to consider the request? :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:38pm • 06:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, being an admin isn't in my plans at the moment. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well if you do ever change your mind, you can give us both a holler :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:17pm • 07:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, do! Thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia--Novus Orator 08:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked for it, you got it, Toyota

And as per your request for even considering this...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I needed that. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just posting to say that I'm not deliberately ignoring your request, I just have never seen you outside of the Pending Changes compromise, and that isn't a good way to form an opinion. I have no reason to oppose, but can't in good conscience support edit filter permissions for someone I've only just met. —Soap— 22:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was just trying to get something moving since my request had sat there for over a week with no action. There have been several postings now, so something will happen one way or the other. I was pretty active last year setting up WP:GLAM, including negotiating changes to WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:EL and others. I had a long wikibreak the first half of this year. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

Regarding your edit to Phoebe Tonkin (this diff), I've reverted it as IMDB is never considered to be a reliable source given that it is user-generated, much like Wikipedia, but with the additional detriment of providing no sources at all. Yeah, it would be grand to find a source besides the flash site, but that's about as authoritative as I've ever been able to find. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not all user generated content. I don't see any way for a user to edit the text in question. Changes to the overview material can be requested, but they have to be approved by IMDB. I agree that a better source would be nice. However, the flash site has no reference either and does not include her year of birth. Do you propose that we remove her birth year from the article instead? Or perhaps we should take out both the day and year until someone finds something better. The alternate October date can be found all over the web, including on Wikia. Does anyone really know the truth? —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article that claims she was 21 in August 2010, implying a birthdate between August 1988 and August 1989. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, it is impossible to know what information on IMDB is accurate. User-generated material and potentially fact-checked material is simply lumped together. Also, the Cite IMDB page you linked to was a failed proposal, so there's no consensus for it to be used as a guideline (plus, it even says to not use IMDB for "Any potentially contentious material about living persons."). As for the flash site, given it is created by the production company, I tend to assume they have access to correct information (straight from the actresses themselves), so I would not support removing altogether. The AFI site you mentioned does indeed mesh with the currently available date of 12 July 1989, and I would suggest using it as a supporting source since, if we take the 12 July date as accurate, 1989 is the only possible year of birth. However, that runs close to synthesis of data. Regarding the October date, while available all over the net on fan sites and forums, I've never seen one shred of official data to back it up. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like synthesis to me to arrive at 12 July 1989, even if I did propose it. The flash site is a terrible reference because you have to go digging for the information and it takes forever to load. I wouldn't assume that the folks assembling such a site are the ones with direct access to the actresses. It's probably a PR firm somewhere pulling data from IMDB. Do they really care if they have a date buried 6 levels down correct or not? I didn't reference the failed proposal as a guide; I was only referring to its overview of the types of content on IMDB and a birthdate is hardly "potentially contentious material", unless Jimbo is involved. However, I agree with you that there is no guarantee of accuracy. What if the flash site didn't exist? We would just reference the AFI site and state that she was 21 in August 2010, then wait for someone to bring something better to the table. Why not? —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, it has been an upsetting week for me, so haven't been on much. Um, I really don't agree that the flash site is a bad reference. Yes, the data should be easier to access (and I hate flash sites in general), but it would be inappropriate to assume that they pulled the data from IMDB rather from their own employees (the actresses), especially considering since the site contains quite a bit of question and answer style material. If the flash site didn't exist, we simply wouldn't have anything, since it wouldn't really be appropriate to have "she was 21 in August 2010" in an encyclopedic-style article. Additional and better citations are always welcome, if they can be found. Personally, to me, there is no such thing as a perfect reference...just adequate ones ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll let it go for now. She's young and something will pop-up eventually. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm sure something will. Always keep your eyes open for something better! :) — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification re OISC page

RE: OISC page - 10:02, 5 October 2010 UncleDouggie (talk | contribs) (14,107 bytes) (Compilation: Remove non-WP:RS + compilation isn't the focus on this article + the compiler is already available from the first EL anyway)

Compiler is not available from the first EL. Probably you confused it with assembler or emulator. A compiler is neither an assembly translator nor an emulator. Compiler translates from high-level language to a processor code or assembler code. The compiler mentioned before in the article is the only existing at this time compiler which compiles into OISC; whereas there are plenty OISC assemblers and emulators. OISC compiler is a thousand times more complex than an assembler or emulator. --Mazonka (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've written simple compilers – I understand them very well. We don't list the thousands of compilers available for CISCs in that article because compilers aren't the focus of that article. The same should hold true for subleq, even if there is only one compiler available. Your compiler is referenced from the "see also" section of the esolang subleq page, for which we have an EL. You are free to propose increasing the visibility of it on the esolang page. Our policy is to not link to multiple pages on the same domain, but I've made an exception for RSSB since it's not linked from the esolang subleq page. Please note that we may still need to remove the RSSB section. Please help us find a source if you think it is worth keeping. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		For your successful amount of time spent on helping user Protector of Wiki. HeyMid (contributions) 13:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope it works! —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I may have made a critical mistake by starting the AN discussion. Consensus is clearly that PoW for now should not be unblocked. Would you've personally taken the original discussion to WP:AN anyway? Or was it a huge mistake by me? HeyMid (contributions) 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have initiated it so fast, but it was probably inevitable given that no admin had been willing to take on the review of the unblock. Don't worry about it. Hopefully it has been an educational experience for Protector of Wiki no matter what happens. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad! And I was disappointed for the fact that some of the opposers were involvies. Those that supported were uninvolved parties. This comment by PoW contributed significantly to the opposes at the AN discussion (particularly the "there, are you happy?" part). My punishment for starting the AN discussion was a one-week block. However, I will not take back the barnstar I gave to you, since I believe you did a great job in helping PoW. Also, I do hope that PoW is considering WP:OFFER. I hope h* continues editing at another sister project (such as Wikisource), and then comes back after six months, when h* has edited constructively at another sister project. Best regards, HeyMid (contributions) 09:56–10:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Just a reminder that the WP:ELN question about Paraphilia is still open. IMO there's no rush, but you'd promised a further response, and I didn't want it to fall completely off your radar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started it at User:UncleDouggie/sandbox. It needs more work and I'm really busy right now. I'll keep plugging away at it as I have time. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn: on the one hand, I like what you've started, but, on the other, I'm not convinced that yet another RFC-style discussion is going to do any good. IMO Cantor is not going to support what he sees as factual errors, and BitterGrey is not likely to support the modern 'academically approved' line, because he opposes any suggestion that paraphilias are either rare or undesirable.

In short, I think they need a representative of the community to tell them The Right Answer™, not to give them another opportunity to refine their arguments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 9f8e41b58e281e6a64f63a3b13e6c487

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln

I regret to inform you that the main image included in the Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln article has been nominated for deletion over at Commons due to somewhat confusing and strict regulations they have. The deletion discussion is available here. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Half of the images on Commons could be deleted with that reasoning. Would we have better success on en.wikipedia under fair use? —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess you could try and see how it goes. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Kay

fair enough--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, OK--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter

Are you still interested in edit filter permissions? I notice that the Pending changes compromise proposal has been silent since September 30. Your request for permissions section was untouched for nearly as long as that, and was archived to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_(permission_requests)#Request_for_permission:_User:UncleDouggie without being resolved. —Soap— 00:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still interested. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. If the Pending Changes reform project ends, or if Pending Changes itself ends, you may be asked to relinquish the userright since you were granted it for this specific purpose, but other than that, you should be good to go. —Soap— 19:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! No problem on relinquishing the right if I don't need it anymore. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Restore honor crowd size mediation

Hi Douggie! Thanks for your comments at the restore honor mediation. At the end the mediator has to decide, but I would very much welcome you in the mediation and would like to see your thoughts as opening statement in the mediation discussion. (But by the way, your discussion at the Sanity and/or Fear rally is faaaaaaaar away from the length of the discussion for restoring honor ;).) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [1] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)