User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please comment on Talk:Veganism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

About this: it'll be reverted very soon, because several of the editors on that page strongly object to mentioning even within-source-admitted authorial politics. Look at the last half-dozen sections of talk page for me insisting several times that we must do what you're trying to do, and (it might almost appear to me) being WP:IDONTHEARYOU'd. FourViolas (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I assume that the potential revert will be by those against in-article declarations of partisan alignment?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant, yes. Another editor tried to do something very similar earlier today, and it didn't go well. FourViolas (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, what unholy can of works have I opened? Dr Crazy 102 (talk)

Dr Chrissy?

On the 'Carnism' talk page you say [my bold], ' However, as I mentioned, there is content that shouldn't be thrown out with the "WP:BATHWATER"... '. The comment about bathwater was made by a 'Dr Chrissy' and I can find no comment from you on that page mentioning content that should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Are you the same person as Dr Chrissy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am neither a sock of DrChrissy, nor am I the same person behind DrChrissy. However, when you look through the "related" topics of WP:JUNK, you find a link to WP:BATHWATER so I wouldn't be surprised if DrChrissy has been looking through the same links.

I do think that there is some good content, but there is heavy POV bias in other areas, hence the bathwater comment.

Hope this can allay some concerns,

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your reply. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

Why did you remove my Requests for page protection [1]? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have edit-conflicted when reverting a request by "RullerBreakerMoodle" which was blatant Vandalism. Sorry to have done that, it wasn't my intention.Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Drcrazy102/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Please comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A note on page moves and article titles

Hello. I see you've recently created Debate (Disambiguation) and Debate (Competitive). Please note that when titles have parenthetical disambiguation, the disambiguating term is lowercase (e.g. Mercury (planet)) I'm not entirely sure moving Debate to Debate (Competitive) was warranted, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC- while the article is bogged down with discussion of collegiate debate clubs, it begins with a broad definition that includes parliamentary aspects. When creating disambiguation pages, also be aware of Partial title matches. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Animalparty, I wasn't aware of the capitalisation style for disambig pages and I have now amended that while putting up a speedy delete notice on the capitalised pages and fixing the redirects. While the lead is mostly salvageable^{(considering its condition)} for a proper Debate article, the content of the article unequivocally belongs in its current home. The parliamentary aspects of the lead are certainly useful, as part of the definition.

I am intending on creating an actual page for Debate as a form of discussion instead of as a competitive sport which the article is currently about, hence my move, and the page will contain links to both the actual parliamentary debating and competitive debating articles. If you would like to help me with this, I would greatly appreciate it as I will probably step on a few policies and guidelines in the process. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LGBT rights opposition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights opposition. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support and faith

Hi DrC! Thanks for your note of support at the requested move, much appreciated.

I know you may have seen other role models, but I'd like to suggest your set your personal threshold for giving up on WP:AGF somewhat higher. I myself try to assume that any user who has demonstrated the bare capability for constructive contribution is in fact here to do so, until the point when they're making edits which obviously damage the encyclopedia after having had the problem brought to their attention. It's no fun to have one's faith challenged; it puts one on edge and makes the whole site less appealing.

User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values is an excellent essay on this. On an Internet forum like this, AGF is often all there is between our wonderful encyclopedia and a pile of flame wars.

Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tis true, I do have a low threshold bar for WP:AGF though that is both on and off line. I tend to call it how I see it and if I'm wrong then I'll concede, however, OlEnglish's essay is certainly a precious little gem in this coal mine we call Wikipedia. I'll promise to have more faith in the editors, IP and Users, going forward even if they don't seem to deserve it.

I hope the review doesn't take too long, thank you for putting some effort into trying to change the sometimes hostile or misunderstood environment that exists and especially thank you for showing me that gem. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)