User talk:David Gerard/archive 5

American Values Club

Sorry to bother you, but I must inquire as to why you have deleted the American Values club article.

Thank you Diapersinlalaland 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Copyright

Hi, you inserted a HTML error:

your code: 

... <a href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable organization">charity.<br />

correct code: 

... <a href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable organization">charity.</a><br />

Regards, --Revvar 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAAAA! whoops. - David Gerard 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Your userpage says that you have never used it. I think that neds to be updated . -- Avi 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, uh, duh again. Yes :-) - David Gerard 08:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London meetup

It was nice meeting you and the others last night. Do let me know when the next meetup with Jimbo is scheduled, or at least let me know where I should check for the announcement. (I'm afraid Wednesday isn't good for me, as I'm going to The New Statesman stage show in the afternoon and have a meeting at night.) You could also inform User:Red Deathy, as he's another Londoner who might be interested in coming.

By the way, it turns out I was right in my suspicion that we knew each other (at least in passing) from dealing with JarlaxleArtemis—you arbitrated the second RfAr case I initiated, and later posted your own report about his activities at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84#JarlaxleArtemis: WP:AN.2FBJAODN. —Psychonaut 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it on wikien-l and wikimediauk-l. I'll probably mention it there again and drop you a note. Not sure where else one would announce one ... UK notice board perhaps - David Gerard 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting them to be announced on Wikipedia:Meetup/London or Wikipedia talk:Meetup/London, since not every Wikipedian subscribes to the mailing list. —Psychonaut 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I'll be sure to note this one there as it'll be the "proper" one (i.e., probably a lot like last night with added Jimbo) - David Gerard 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I love the links on your userpage to upset users describing you. You're clearly doing something right - David Gerard 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London meet is TUESDAY 9th, not Wednesday 10th!

Update: Jimbo got his days of the week confused. This is now happening TUESDAY 9th, same place. You may care to sign up again or not - David Gerard 10:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update David. Unfortunately I was not able to attend yesterday as I was stuck teaching a bunch of Fortran programmers how to deal with XML... Hope you (all) had fun. Andreww 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like something for the next update of the Geneva Convention - David Gerard 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Able and Baker. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Naconkantari 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Orange

I wanted you to be aware that I changed your #REDIRECT for West Orange from a redirect to West Orange, New Jersey to a disambiguation page due to the fact that there are other Wikipedia articles which use the name West Orange. Thank you. 68.162.16.52 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's a wiki, and this is a perfect example of why anon editing is a good thing :-) - David Gerard 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and I've re-established the redirect now to West Orange (disambiguation). I feel it's a better place to have the list. I hope you and 68.162.16.52 don't mind. Orel Puppington 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDE is not ferret-compatible

I found the KDE bug we were talking about earlier: Bug 108312. I could be misremembering, but I think the original bug summary was "KDE is not ferret-compatible", and then some administrator changed it to something more mundane. Regardless, you will observe the helpful screenshot demonstrating the bug and the fact that the bug still has a rather large number of votes. —Psychonaut 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Opik photo

Hi, do you have a suitably licensed photo of Lembit from his brother's wake that you could add to his article? --J2thawiki 12:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have photos, but I'd want to check it with him first, and also he is quite likely to have spare professional-quality photos he may be willing to make available under a free-content license. I'll email him at his office asking for the second option, as the photo will be waaay better :-) - David Gerard 16:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are the 4th match on google for your name now.

Commons and reuse of GPL/LGPL contents

Hello David,

I have read your message and written my answer at Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Reuse_of_GPL.2FLGPL_contents. Teofilo talk 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole

I removed some revisions from the history of Cheryl Cole that you said on its talk page that you wouldn't. Someone has been sending around the link to the old, vandalised version, to news outlets as if it were the current version of the article. I have personally answered at least 5 different OTRS emails from people pointing out that (oldid) URL as vandalised, even though it was reverted pretty quickly, and quite a few days ago. So I figured it's easier to just remove the specific revision they keep referring to, than to have the (admittedly stupid) media of the world assuming it's vandalism that WMF condones and won't remove. - Mark 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! - David Gerard 10:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Pellow

I noticed the news item in the Wiki news. Oddly enough, someone recently inserted info to say that Paul McCartney had died in his entry also. Thought you should know.LuciferMorgan 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-admins

Will you set me up on the channel as well? I won't be there every hour of every day (IRC is disabled at work), but I'll be there often enough once I am invited. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Interiot has taken care of it, so no worries. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcginnly's block

Please see this; can you explain there how Mcginnly's sockpuppetry was "abusive"? Thank you. -- Hoary 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, dude. Setting up three editors and making a fake content dispute between them? Wikipedia is not an RPG - David Gerard 11:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people beg to differ... Carcharoth 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know you from somewhere...

There's a guy on Uncyc with exactly the username as you! How coincidental. I guess David Gerard is a popular name. Anyway, down to biznass, I was wondering if you could restore the Valencia Grapes article to my userspace so that I could put it on Uncyc. If you don't want to that's cool too, but I hope you also don't want to ever see your precious cat and/or dog again either (you do have a cat or a dog right?). Ta. --Anywan 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed with posting to wikitech-l

I have a serious case of gremlins - tried several ways of posting to that list for a week and nothing works. Sigh. I see you are one of the contributors to that mailing list: could I ask you to repost my letter? It can be copy&pasted easily from User:Piotrus/Sandbox#letter.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2 Jerry lavoie 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser

Please explain how Kelly Martin (a non admim) is aware of the findings of your checkuser on me [1] (created multiple accounts, and possibly been subjected to impersonation)I am happy for you to list here the "multiple socks" and the impersonation attempt. While I freely admit to having had a previous user name (no secret) and a humerous sock created for a joke -no sock has ever abused wikipedia policies. I want to know who else you have told about the findings and why? Giano 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I don't think Kelly is talking about putative CheckUser results here, but rather reasons for doing the check in the first place:
  • "multiple accounts": Giano + Giano II
  • "possibly been subjected to impersonation": Giano II (who could, in theory, have been someone trying to impersonate you, rather than a new account)
(Which is, I think, an entirely silly way of summarizing the situation; but it's not actually wrong in its factual aspects.) Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it explains it then - fine. Obviously a misunderstanding in my part. Apologies David for dobting your dicretion. Giano 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. It was after you posted those messages that looked to me like declaration of intent to trash the place and made me go "WHAT ON EARTH" and block you. Then Bishonen and I had a long talk and she got across to me that you were 0% likely to do any such thing, and I went to unblock you and someone else had already. I ran the check (and said on the thread in ANI that I had, I think), but revealing results is quite another matter. I wrote the bit of policy on what to reveal from CheckUser: m:Checkuser#Wikimedia_privacy_policy - based on Foundation privacy policy. - David Gerard 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swinford

Hi David, I removed the "sprot" tag from this article because it was edited by a user from an IP address and is not listed at WP:PP. Can you let me know if what I did was the right thing to do in a situation like this? Thanks. Robotman1974 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put a semi-block on it that expired after a week, so taking the tag off is good, thank you! - David Gerard
Ok, thanks. Robotman1974 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and OTRS

I'd be happy to work with you on a "these articles are crap, people are bitching" kind of thing, but I want to make sure that we don't get into the area of naming specific articles (which, obviously, can be attacked by those with malicious intent). Let me know what your ideal concept of such a feature would be, and perhaps we can work something out. It might also be a good way of getting more admins to pull OTRS duty; while I have OTRS login myself, I could certainly use the occasional reminder to do more OTRS work :) Ral315 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Shimgray does a lot of OTRS work, he'd be a good person to write a summary of noteworthy stuff. With the eternal "cannonfodder are always needed" on the end of course - David Gerard 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

I noticed your post on WP:AN about needing more volunteers for OTRS. I'd be willing to take a 90 day tour if you're interested. Thanks, alphachimp 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page, m:OTRS, is where the volunteers line up! Yes please! See next answer as well - David Gerard 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious for some information as to the type of work to be done, the amount of time one might wind up needing to put into this, and whether a fairly casual non-admin like myself could help out at all. (I hit the Help Desk regularly already, but lately there have been no questions needing answers when I drop in.) Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we expect a lot of companies saying "our article is terrible because of x" and the clueful editors would need to point them at the talk page and possibly make the reasonable edits. Microsoft is famous, but for a lot of minorly notable companies, notes on their article talk pages might languish unread for ages. Someone's gotta make the edits, not just file them for someone else to make. Sandra is planning an actual press release by next Tuesday or so, and I would expect a sudden FLOOD of attention - David Gerard 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, should've clicked along a little further and seen that bit about "should be an admin" on the next page. Thanks for the answer nonetheless - I guess I'll stick with the Help Desk for now. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spaink image

Hi, read your post on foundation-l about the Spaink image. The image used on nl:, nl:Image:Karin_Spaink.jpg has been released under GFDL and permission is secured in the nl-OTRS-queue. I'm not familiar with the way OTRS works exactly, so question to you: is it possible to upload the image to commons and link to the Dutch OTRS-permission there, so it can be used as a replacement for the non-free image here, or does the permission have to be forwarded to the Commons-queue? Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good! Yes, it should be possible to upload it to Commons with a copy of and link to the permission. I have no idea about the proper way to note permissions on Commons, though ... - David Gerard 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now: Image:Karin_Spaink.jpg. Permission is noted using Commons' standard template, so that should be alright. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedalated.

You still have to judge for the PLS!!! --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia fundraising

In response to this request for suggestions, may I suggest a running series of pictures of actual hardware we wish to buy with a price countdown from purchase price to "We bought it. Thank you for helping us buy [whatever]." I think people will enjoy feeling a sense of "I helped buy that". Items purchased in this way should have a wikimedia web page with donors' names, and as much data about the item (updated occasionally so people can see how "their" hardware is doing) as can easily be added. Give people a concrete feeling of partnership. And give fundraising the specificity it needs not to get old and boring. 4.250.138.70 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250)[reply]

FYI

Durin is really doing the figures thing at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard

Durin is doing an incredible job at WP:BN#Redesigning adminship, explaining all the problems, in response to Michael Snow.

He really has gone into great detail analysing RFA there.

Perhaps you'd like to spread the word! :-)

--Kim Bruning 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to Siberia, USA!

Or at least the article I've just written about it... another puncturing of CoS myths, I'm afraid! See Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. -- ChrisO 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brick 'O common sense

For writing the greatest edit summary ever., I hereby award you the rarest and most sought-after of all wiki-awards, the brick 'O common sense. Raul654 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong? El_C 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just feeding the issue at all. This one's really really really just best left in a box and not exposed to feeding via atmospheric idiocy. Everything in it is arguably covered by present policy and practice, and having a page to thrash out carefully-defined black-and-white boundaries of stupid is probably not a useful or helpful idea to writing an encyclopedia. Despite appearances, Wikipedia is not MySpace. And so forth. If you really seriously disagreee with this statement, well ... the talk page is still there and I have no doubt discussion will continue. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is in fact an elegant and simple rule that follows obviously from the core policies; if so, that'll be a place it can emerge from - David Gerard 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain how the above relates to myself. Does it? More generally, I feel it is questionable for the project to allow pedophiles to identify themsleves as such and that this could prove to be a public relations disaster. But if the Wiki Establishment has opted to perpetuate the practice, I won't bang my head on a brick (of common or otherwise sense) wall. El_C 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration decision was that we want the project to be open to people of different beliefs, and when editing articles, for those people to come together to agree on a consensus version. At the same time, we don't want people s' self identifications to bring the project into disrepute. And if it sounds like these two goals are mutually contradictory - yes, we are well aware. Which is why we (the committee) are going to take pre-emptive measures to stamp out any effort to stir the pot, as we have done here. Or, to use an old metaphor - it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
So to answer your question directly - no, this is nothing personally directed at you. It's just that we are making a concerted effort to prevent another huge blowout. Raul654 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. Do you intend to take any measures about the self-identification? Let me be blunt: there are powerful commercial and otherwise forces hostile to the project which may exploit any indecision on that front to cause us very bad publicity. We are in agreement on the need to prevent another blowout within the Wikipedia, but my fear is (which perhaps you could address for me) that this could come at the risk of a 'blowout' in the mainstream media. El_C 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an easy question to answer, and I'm not Solomon - I'll give it my best shot though. I think, perhaps, it would be best if we judge people by the edits they make, and not their self identification. To this end, a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy might be best. Raul654 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; but let me be more blunt with respect to the -don't tell bit: does the committee intends to prohibit this self-identification? Are you considering concrete steps at this time? El_C 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing it at the moment because we *just* found out about this last night (I noticed it and raised the alarm on our mailing list). The consensus was to shoot that thing in short order. Beyond that, I/we/they are not really aware of an ongoing problem. If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. If you want to press the issue, you could file a request for clarification on the issue. Raul654 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very pleased we see eye to eye on this. I found David's comment a bit difficult to parse (I, however, would like to remind him, or at least state for the record, that I was never involved in an edit/wheel war even remotely related to this set of issues, ever). I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I will try to author a request for clarification soon (which, incidentally, would have been my first choice, before adding it to existing policy, and I certainly would not have been in favour of the aforementioned WP:PEDO-specific policy proposal — I explain the reasons for my participation in that effort with my response to Kim bellow, and here). Thanks again for articulating the Committee's position (as well as your own) so clearly. They are fortunate to have you as a member. El_C 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, the page has been deleted. Not really fair, now we have a secret brick of common sense! --Kim Bruning 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit the brick refers to was 15:14, 21 February 2007 . . David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) (Protected Wikipedia:Pedophiles: um, no. The pedophile wheel war is not meant to be an annual derby. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) Raul654 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<g r i n> I second the brick of common sense. --Kim Bruning 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Hmm, now I wonder if having a separate usertype who can still read deleted revisions would be worth the while. (I'd like to encourage some of the older admins to hand in the bit, so as to stress the "no big deal" concept.) [reply]
Kim, basically, there was a section that began with: "It is acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage..." — which I replaced with: "It is not acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage. The very act of identifying as a pedophile is disruptive." I am pleased to see that the Committee shares my view (I presumed they did to begin with; I did not author the policy and found it far from an ideal approach, but it served to get my point across through a more comprehensible format than WP:AN). El_C 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I feel tempted to just say that people should know for themselves whether or not they self-identify as pedophiles.... in the same way that cubans are totally free to display a "I hate castro" userbox, germans are free to show an "I support the neo-nazi movement" userbox, israelis are free to display a "all power to hamas" userbox, etc.
Or am I being too much of a darwinist here? ;-) --Kim Bruning 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ps. Bishonen was saying nice things about you today, and I did see your edits as well! :-)[reply]
I long for a world where there is no longer a reason for such hate, userboxen and beyond (no, it is not intrinsic to 'human nature'!), and whereas editors such as Raul & Bishoen (she always says nice things about me, some even true!) support the WP:FARC, I support the FARC — how's that for (liberal-democratic) disrepute? Of course, this goes beyond the scope of the discussion here, but, to be pedantic: not "in the same way." This, since pedophilia is universally outlawed by all nation-states (while the conditions faced by girls in many underdeveloped countries result in them entering into wedlock at very early age, even those countries, at least de jure, all follow some sort of legal doctrine which prohibits it). El_C 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing

David, do you find it embarassing that you're in a Digg article attacking you for your corrupt behaviors? That kinda stinks, if you know what I mean. — 68.37.134.182 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC). - aka Rory[reply]

I heard about it when someone on IRC called Parker's page "a comedy goldmine". My IP is static and easily tracked down; file the post under "this is the shit I put up with" - David Gerard 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true, though? Or, better said, what's true IN there? Is it just complete lies, or are there some grains of truth? We've heard SOME things about WikiAbuse before... >_> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.134.182 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Parker Peters appears to be the performance artist commonly known as Enviroknot. I have no intention of going through his concentrated stupidity looking for possibly true sentences - David Gerard 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an interesting read. I see your cronies even as I speak.
I seem to still get people dumb enough to email me stuff for WikiTruth thinking I have any link with it whatsoever. Haven't had an RFC at all yet, let alone a certified one. But I'm sure actual evidence will show up with the invective one day in the far, far future - David Gerard 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh forget about it. Who are we kidding? You're a perfect admin. 69.137.223.153 09:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it's about time you got called to the mat for your worthless proselytizing. Get a different hobby and take your self-important ego elsewhere. Wikipedia does not need you, and you're doing more harm than good. 207.67.84.171 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I've blocked the above editor for three hours for general nastiness as well as a suspicion that it's a blocked editor anyway. Any comment from you on this would be welcome in the AN/I thread here. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this is what is wrong with Wikipedia. I don't know if the article is real or not. But do you have any proof that this user is a blocked editor? This story got up on DIGG, remember. Millions of people saw this piece. Chances are, this is a completely anonymous user who has no relationship to any of this. Your blocking him, rather than trying to argue your position (as David did when I asked him above) just shows you as an abusive administrator, rather than a rational one.
Everybody does stupid things. I've vandalized several pages as part of movements online (a few of which I agreed with, a few of which I started), though I've also made several useful edits as well. The people who reverted me were wise enough to realize that I wasn't a nasty terrorist, just a mild prankster. And to ban for a comment on a talk page is ridiculous. Something's happened to the once-jolly Wikipedia, and not for the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.134.182 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Times article

I've been told that today's issue of The Times has an article about the recent Wikipedia meetup with Jimbo. The ferret gets a mention. :) —Psychonaut 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

I find it hysterical that you are clamoring for the due process that you've denied to so many other people who have dared to cross you, I.E. Parker Peters. How many of those few piss-poor "I agree" posts beneath you were your sockpuppets? Kade 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Parker! Or reasonable equivalent. I see your talk page demonstrates your current superlative abilities at working with others - David Gerard 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake - David Gerard 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're really into making Wikipedia an enjoyable collaborative environment other than a place where you simply bully people and get all smug for knowing the difference between 'your' and 'you're.' What kind of furniture do you have in your ivory tower? 67.88.208.65 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/Essjay

[2] - please don't be silly. If you want to delete this you may want to talk to Ral315, who moved the discussion to an RFC in the first place. Catchpole 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't show a clear understanding of why uncertified RFCs are to be deleted - David Gerard 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parody article re: Essjay/Jimbo

... Was very funny. Don't let the drama-queens get ya down :) -- Ned Scott 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Essjay/RFC

David,

I realize from many of your strong and somewhat emotional comments during the whole sordid affair surrounding Essjay that you are probably acting as much if not more from a personal connection to Essjay as you are from an impartial point of view. The reason I argued strongly against the deletion of this article is because it serves as the best record of this dispute and the efforts of the contributors here to deal with the situation. Deleting this page leaves only the other fractured, uglier discussions—such as User talk:Essjay—as the record for anyone or any journalists coming here in the wake of the news coverage. Especially since the New York Times article, which gave favorable coverage to Wikipedia based on the community's efforts to address this issue, I think it is for the benefit of the project to leave this record in place.

By deleting this record of the discussion and the struggle of the community to come to terms with the deception of one of our best members, you have done the entire project a great disservice. It is a rather weak justification in the face of the good that the orderly discussion at this page did to hang the deletion on the reason that it is uncertified RfC. Not only did the page not even begin life as an RfC, but it could have been certified as a procedural issue without problem if this was simply a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. If ever there was a time to ignore all rules, then this was one of those moments—this article absolutely should not have been deleted on a technicality.

I am respectfully asking you to step aside from your personal connection in this case and for the greater good of the project, undelete this important historical record so that everyone, both inside and outside the project, can see how we work and understand that this project has the resiliancy to face and overcome failings of even our most respected members.

—Doug Bell talk 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am strongly in favour of quietening this mess down, but deleting the RFC will only anger people more - archive it - whatever - but deletion is unethical and will lead to charges of all manner of unsavoury things. Giano 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

I'd endorse this, it seems odd that only administrators should have access to the discussion now, established non-admins also need to see the debate however unpleasant and painful it may have been. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we now have the Essjay RFC listed on here [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive] yet no one can look at it. Astounding Munta 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is at ANI. Dragons flight 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion? No. Archiving is done, but deleting is not done. Deleting is a paranoia multiplier and a drama escalator. This is especially the case since people who feel betrayed by Essjay's putting himself forward are going to suspect that he "quit" only to return or under a reincarnation. Geogre 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course deletion is done. The lynch mob made it into an "RFC" to give it colour of not being a lynch mob. Then it failed to meet even that standard. Out it goes. If you feel I'm that dead wrong, I invite you to bring an RFC or Arbcom case, i.e. put up or shut up - David Gerard 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is wise to call many respected editors a lynch mob, all you are doing is irritating a potentially even more unplesant situation. Giano 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I probably won't go this far, I agree - David Gerard 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have made reasoned arguments here and you respond with "put up and shut"? Being out of process isn't really an argument for deletion in this case IMHO, there's an overriding public interest defence. But there's really no need for such a combative style, we're here to talk about it, nobody wants anymore of a dust up than has already occured - I'm concerned that you and your actions are inflaming the situation. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, there is discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5#User:Essjay/RFC. If opinions keep piling up at the current rate, I will probably move it to a non-transcluded subpage later today. David, your opinion or explanation in the deletion review is welcome (yes, you can opine that your own action should be endorsed); the DRV instructions instruct nominators to request your participation. GRBerry 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imposter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Young

Imposter, claiming to be Shelby Young a very well known actreess who just happened to show up during a "credits " war. Credits don't appear on imdb.com and dealing with 2 radical fans here one of whom made a Shelby Young account, please come take a look.69.132.198.252 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not an imposter, I took a photo for proof. But, if you're anything like user 69.132.198.252, then I'm sure you'll think it's photoshopped as well. Yes, I did re-voice Ellie Aarons in Bridge to Terabithia. No, I'm not with Savage agency and this user says (and says they called to see if I did re-voice). Besides, my agents wouldn't tell any random caller what I have/have not done.

Thank you, but I'm tired of this user telling me I'm not me. Even when I provide proof.

Shelby 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby,

First you no own any page here on wikipedia as you claim. also am showing you list you roles on you page that do not appear on reputable sites like imdb.com. you say you on roles in movie but they not listed only show on "fan" sites. Wikipedia is verifiability by a reputable source. I do not consider you reputable source as anyone can look at the crc file for you picture and see it was open adobe photoshop and CREATED on march 5 2007. Is real you, it amazing you are show up on wikipedia.org during a small content dispute over one role that you now say you really do, but it not show anywhere. You make fun I am greek, I can overlook that is fine okay, but you not own wikipedia, you claim i am harass, not, I am just looking for verifiability. 69.132.198.252 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Never said I own Wikipedia. 2. Darkhorizons.com and cinema.com are not fan websites. IMDB is not the only reputable site out there. 3. I don't have photoshop. Adobe Album Starter is what my uploaded photo's go onto, but they only things I'm able to edit on there are red eye and cropping. 4. I never made fun of you for being Greek. You can read previous posts and see that I never did. 5. I'm tired of people arguing over whether or not a voiced a character when I know I did. It's not like I'm THAT famous that I can't go on websites. 6. This is the end. I'm done arguing with you. Believe what you want. Yes, I do feel harassed when you just go out of your way to claim I'm not me, even when I provide proof. Do not respond to me. Do not mention me. Don't do anything more or I will just delete it. And stop changing my credit. It's getting annoying. I'm done talking with you.

Shelby 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WM

I'm afraid I don't recall my password. I have just updated my WP email to the account I now use - please feel free to contact me that way. Kind regards, Jon, jguk 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

A recent edit war...

Hello,

In a recent Edit War over the article for the film Children of Men, the user Viriditas accused me of being a meat-puppet of the user Arcayne. I was very angry about Viriditas continuously removing messages that I had left on his talk page. He classified these reverts as:

  • "Remove suspected meatpuppet"
  • "Remove trolling"

Could you please prove to to Viriditas that the IP address of me and Arcayne are in countries so far apart that it is impossible that I could have met him in person (and why would I want to become a meat-puppet if I hadn't met him?)

Thank-You for understanding,

Booksworm Talk to me! 14:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Therefore I ask you to perform a CheckUser on both me and Arcayne to protect both our interests Booksworm Talk to me! 14:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Upload an image" ad should go to Commons

Or at least to a page that points the Free Content images to commons. Wikipedia:Fromowner is a start ... it still points at en:wp. I'd hope this doesn't have to wait until Single User Logon - David Gerard 10:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this did occur to me when I was deciding where to point it. Pointing it at commons:Special:Upload would result in a "not logged in" error page for anyone who isn't currently logged in there (which I'd imagine is most people). Single User Login should hopefully solve this. A limitation of the <imagemap> extension is that it can't use arbitrary external links, else I'd point it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=fromowner directly. I'll change it to Wikipedia:Fromowner for now. Thanks for your input – Qxz 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Pollicy!!!!1

Hi David! Remember that Official Policy To Outlaw Sarcasm (so that only outlaws would be sarcastic)? In the wake of the Essjay drama, there's now a movement to make Wikipedia:Honesty Official Policy. Obviously this will result in every editor who has ever told a lie during their lives to leave Wikipedia, thus making everything bright and shiny again! Since of course we make policy by taking an essay and voting on it, I hope we can count on yours? >Radiant< 09:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* It's a lovely essay, but ... yeah. Notes added - David Gerard 10:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

1173823035 21:57:15#wikipedia-en-admins: <DavidGerard> xyr: look over that link i just said

Looks good, but you don't need a cloak for that. What you do really need a cloak for is an invite exception, where we grant a 'permanent' invite by doing (as an operator) /mode #wikipedia-en-admins +I *!*@their/cloak/here - I suggest you add this. Thanks. —Xyrael / 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Work in progress

Great essay! - David Gerard 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (And someone noticed it at last, yay!) – Qxz 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI


P-Basses

Thanks for the remark on the P-Bass photo. It's a photoshop trick, but I love the look and feel of P-Basses. I did the same thing onJazz Basses, but it was deleted.--Magi Media 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your rapid assistance. DurovaCharge! 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to run something past you.

I want to create a MetaProject on meta to bring together all the various LGBT WikiProjects, promote inter-lingual collaboration, encourage the development of projects on other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects, and help out projects where LGBT editors and articles seem to be getting a lot of stick and the perps are getting away with it. I have several people interested across four languages so far. I can't find any precedent for this on meta, and no advice was forthcoming on the Help forum, so I just wanted to ask if you knew of any guidelines I need to be aware of before I create it. I don't want to put effort in then get it sunk. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've seen this message by now and didn't object, so I'll take that as a yes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, sorry, yes. Sounds like a good idea to me :-) - David Gerard 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

I wanted to let you know I was BOLD and changed the front-page of the WP:SCN project, it's sort of a simpler, friendlier more easier to use page, which will be easier for new members to see and understand. The older version was getting large and unwieldy. However, I archived it to the talk page archive so that it can still be utilized if need be. Let me know what you think, and of course thanks for putting the WikiProject together in the first place way back when... Smee 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, whatever works :-) I just followed the generic template ... - David Gerard 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay great, thanks. I was nervous there for a second. Hope you're doing well. Yours, Smee 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FAR of Humpback Whale

Humpback Whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dobbie

I suspected it was, but the fall-out from temporarily blocking him seemed far less than the potential shitstorm if it wasn't actually him. Most the pictures came from the BBC website so I can't see what FU rationale could have been made for them and I had to bite the bullet and ditch them; at the same, he'd make a good contact for trying to get the BBC Press Office to free-licence images for us - certainly his own if nothing else. I'd be grateful to hear of any additions that can be made to my explanation page (or slam them straight into it yerself, of course). Cheers! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks very much for helping to block Mike Church's sockpuppets.

Is there any particular reason you aren't reverting his contributions, too? I notice, for example, that the edit by Disgustion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to User talk:Mike Church, claiming that Mike was "selling admin accounts", remained after you blocked him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just blocking the socks en masse, not chasing all edits as well. (Someone asked "could you please checkuser this apparent miscreant?" and I looked at the result and went "flippin' 'eck, it's a nest of 'em!" I'll try to remember the mass reverting in future, time permitting - David Gerard 07:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I didn't even know that checkuser could do that now. Do you mean to say you got all the Churchpuppets? (I find it hard to believe there were only 9 left, so there are probably more out there...)
Anyway, if you look at the contributions you'll probably see why I want them reverted. If I do it myself, though, then I'm just inviting more abuse. Right now, he sees me as the source of all his problems on Wikipedia (instead of, you know, himself). So could you do me a favor and mass-revert those accounts' contributions? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno that I got all of them, and of course he will probably come back repeatedly. But yes, certainly :-) - David Gerard 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU/Linux naming controversy FAR

GNU/Linux naming controversy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Omegatrend

I've nominated Omegatrend, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Omegatrend satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omegatrend and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Omegatrend during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Venetians (Australian Rock Band)

  • David,

The Venetians have been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venetians (Australian Rock Band). Given your expertise in the field, I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jawdropping idiocy

Any chance you could edit this comment to be a little less offensive? I humbly propose that at least a few of the opposers are highly respected users, and thought through careful statements. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"# Oppose - As a Johnny come lately member of the community I have many (as yet to be expressed) opinions about many wikipedia policies. I thank Danny for his overall contributions and participation and consider him a valuable member of the community. Since I am allowed to express a vote and an opinion, I choose to express opposition as a vote in opposition of many of the things Danny stands for as a representative of Wikipedia (which isn't personal - it's more structural). I'd rather see things go in a lot of different directions, and this is one humble mechanism for expressing myself about wikipedia. If that's not kosher for RfA's, lemme know."
I mean, what the fuck. - David Gerard 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That particular opposition you site isn't very clearly phrased, but I think I understand what it is trying to say. I think it wants to say:
  1. Danny's a good contributor
  2. But as an admin, he would be a representative of Wikipedia
  3. And a representative of Wikipedia shouldn't be someone who supports biting newbies, not reacting to constructive criticism, etc.
I can't guarantee that's what he's trying to say, but I am parsing it that way because if so, it is exactly what a lot of other people are trying to say.
But let's say that I'm wrong. Let's say that this particular opposer woke up one morning and decided to oppose someone because their user name starts with D. That is still not a reason for calling the other 100+ oppose reasons "idiocy", is it? Some of those 100 reasons are better than others. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essential problem is that you are confusing "assume good faith" with "assume competence" - your answer seems to address the commenter's sincerity. However, "assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "don't assume malice when stupidity will suffice." I don't question most of the "oppose" votes' sincerity. I strongly question their judgement.
And really: if you can't look at the "oppose" list and see lots of deeply sincere deep stupidity, then me taking you through the comments one by one won't help.
See also the bureaucrats' eventual decision, which does dissect the stupidity on a comment-by-comment basis. - David Gerard 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atom feeds

Hi David! Yeah, ATOM is basically stuffed sometimes with PlanetPlanet, showing up usually with dupe posts. I've changed Hsiang-Tai's blog feed to specify RSS, and to be filtered by topic to just "Wikimedia Foundation", which seems to have stopped the dupe posts. I emailed the PlanetPlanet authors previously about some other tech problems with the software (e.g. weird error messages), and they recommended switching over to version 3 when it's released, which doesn't sound that far away (and they weren't very interested in fixing problems in the current version). The version it's running currently is a nightly of version 2, which (I think) includes the stuff from this post. So my current strategy is to push anything that plays up over to RSS, and hold out for version 3 to go gold. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi David. I'd just like to note that you can behave quite stupidly at times, like speedy deleting Essjay's RfC a few weeks ago. I mean, think about it, what an idiot should somebody be to speedy an RfC started because of articles in major news agencies involving an Wikipedia editor lying about credentials, with the deletion motivated by a technicality, that it was not certified.

Your general comments can be quite dumb too. If you had better judgment you would know that offending others does nothing to convince people that you are right, they just make you look like a fucking moron who never learned the subtleties of intelligent conversation.

No offense taken I hope. I just like to speak my mind every now and then. You can reply below this post if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment on Danny's RfA...

...is on the talk page. You've had your say, I've had mine, and the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. Casey Abell 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi David, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism by User:COFS

David, would you please take a look at this. [3] I posted a couple links and COFS removes it claiming that it is commercial promotion. These are both freezone (independent scientology) groups.--Fahrenheit451 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the problem with RFA

I think you'll find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat quite pleasing. Not that it means everything suddenly changes, but it's clear reasoned precedent for ignoring stupid and irrelevant opposes, however sincere they may be - David Gerard 14:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. I have added it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Feel free to comment there -- Cat chi? 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on my RFA

Admittedly, shooting for adminship may have been premature. However I wanted to thank you for asking questions of those who opposed my RFA, even if they did go unanswered. I especially agree with the comment about real-world commitments... When one has four birthdays within his immediate family in February, it does become a little difficult to find time to edit Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.165.158.7

Hi, David. I noticed you blocked 216.165.158.7, DreamGuy's IP, for one month as a sock of a "banned user", and for making "Continuing personal attacks using talk page as platform". What makes you think DreamGuy is banned? He's not. And this is merely his IP, it's not an abusive sock--not used, as far as I know, and as far as he asserts, for supporting Dreamguy, bypassing 3RR, or anything like that. Presumably you've clicked on DreamGuy's contribs and seen that the IP being blocked has meant that the DreamGuy account has also been blocked? I ask you to reconsider the length of the block. Also to undo the semiprotection of the IP's talkpage, as that is his only venue for communication. Do you really think he has been making personal attacks of a kind to make it necessary to prevent him from even requesting an unblock of an uninvolved admin? On his own page, that nobody needs to go to and feel disrupted by...? I also ask you to, at least, report this unusual block on ANI for review, and to post a block message on the user. From your own contribs list, it doesn't look like you've edited since taking these actions, so I hardly expect you to see my requests, but I hope you do, and that you consider them. If I don't hear from you, I'll post on ANI myself. Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It does appear that you imposed this block on the basis of an inadvertent factual error. Please reevaluate it and post your comments to the thread that Bishonen has started on ANI here. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block message on the talk page has been updated. Read the history for the continuing personal attacks. Bishonen, I hope you're not shielding someone given to vicious personal attacks yet again - David Gerard 09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous RefBot block

Please remove your block of my User:RefBot (log). Your block is interfering with the process of having the tools reapproved, and serves no purpose as if I was trying to run the bot I could have used another name. There are two walls stopping RefBot past the speed bump of your block. Also, your stated reason for the block is still factually incorrect, as the ArbCom ruling does not apply to any specific name and RefBot was not created for evasion. RefBot was created following instructions to me in the bot approval process. (SEWilco 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Um, anyone could who's familiar with your reasons for wanting an unblock - are there no admins associated with the request? - David Gerard 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other admins are making up different incorrect reasons rather than evaluating your block. See User talk:RefBot. There is at least one unwritten rule about using {{unblock}} multiple times and I don't know what other traps there are in seeking admin review. (SEWilco 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
See below - the entire bot approval process looks like it's about to be taken out and shot, and it appears well-deserved - David Gerard 07:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll deal with whatever the bot approval process is after someone cleans up the ArbCom kangaroo court. But your block is in the way of both those processes because nobody wants to review it and it serves as an excuse to not do anything. I could create yet another name for the task, as the ArbCom referred to me under any name so gave no name restrictions, but then your block would serve as a reason to block that. (SEWilco 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No response. Did you get distracted by the bot bureaucratic mess? My request has nothing to do with that. (SEWilco 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Personal attacks

Please make your point without namecalling[4]. I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. As an admin you should already know this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my terseness - when you argue with the devs whose job it is to run the servers whether they are qualified to judge whether a bot can go fast, I figured that was obviously ridiculous enough that it didn't need further embellishment. To correct it: You are acting like completely pompous idiots in this instance. You blocked it, he pointed out a dev okayed it as harmless, and rather than the obvious thing to do - "ok, no worries, let us know in advance next time" - you spend thousands of words defending the policy against the people who are actually responsible for the servers the policy is supposed to protect. It's spectacular, and evidence for the deletion of WP:BOWN and severe rationalisation of the attached policies - David Gerard 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is fine the name calling is not. And putting "your are acting" or "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that you may" before an insult does not make it acceptable. From WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

Basically you should not be criticizing the contributor at all, just the contribution, no matter how correct your point may or may not be. Also, I didn't block it, I did not spend a thousand words on anything, I am uninvolved in the dispute. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. HE DID NOT SAY HE IS A DEVELOPER. OK? Got it now? And I'm still waiting for an apology after the personal attack. I'm a volunteer here too, just without the "leet checkuser" and IRC cartel membership, and I don't appreciate being abused for trying to help out.

One other thing. We've still not been told why it's our fault that Cyde was okayed to break the bot speed limit and nobody told us in advance. We're not all on IRC, you know. --kingboyk 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When asking people to be civil, it is important to be civil yourself. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility is one thing, a personal attack is quite another. There also comes a point when incivility goes out of the window; that point comes when you're being unreasonably treated and (seemingly) nobody cares much about it. If you'd like to follow my contribs trail (not that I suggest you do), it's become quite clear that people are happy to scapegoat me for what was basically a failure of the IRC cartel to inform BAG of it's decisions.
All that said, I value your opinion most highly, and if you think I overstepped the mark there I humbly apologise. Thank you for pointing it out. --kingboyk 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peace. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, this[5] is not one bit better, it is also a personal attack if you put a little conditional before it. Please stop commenting negatively towards the contributors, they are volunteers, and we have a policy to protect them from insulting comments. You are an admin, act like it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I refactored it myself, as you'll note if you go forward a few diffs - David Gerard 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, the post signed at 20:30, 22 April 2007, as it is now,

Excuse me. You are acting like completely pompous idiots in this instance. You blocked it, he pointed out a dev okayed it as harmless, and rather than the obvious thing to do - "ok, no worries, let us know in advance next time" - you spend thousands of words defending the policy against the people who are actually responsible for the servers the policy is supposed to protect. It's spectacular, and evidence for the urgent need for severe rationalisation and ground-up rewrite of bot policies. Preferably by devs'

Is still a personal attack. "You are acting like", "in my opinion", "it seems to me", these little phrases to not excuse you from the rule against insults. Please do not comment negatively to the contributors. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. How would you have phrased it, making all the relevant points and not missing any? - David Gerard 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have stuck to the subject at hand, and not make any personal comment about the editors. Talk about bot, the block, the reasoning, provide information others may not have. The only part that I would not be able to communicate from your message is your low opinion of the other editors, which is not relevant to the discussion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Endorse block

Such a personal attack! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I see that calibre of bureaucracy for its own sake I have to remember only to delineate the gross foolishness rather than merely point at it - David Gerard 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, if you're damn sure you're better than them, act like it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "un-wiki"

Thanks for your response. I guess what I meant by "un-wiki" was the implication that just because developers have the power, they have the authority. I know that it is far from always being the case that the wiki is actually community-governed, but ignoring the core priniciple of concensus is what is "un-wiki". The community expectation is that developers should use their power to further the concensus of the community, shaped by the founding principles of the project. That is why people are willing to do volunteer work for this project (at least that's why I'm willing).

BTW, when you say "developers" I assume you mean developers with shell/root access, not just committers, since not all of the stuff that goes into SVN is equally competent (as evidenced by the fairly frequent reverts of code by people such as Brion and Tim Starling with better knowledge of the actual operational structure of Wikimedia's server environment). Mike Dillon 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalised gibberish

Picking someone at random (well, not really) from the thread on Kelly's page, I've been following the discourse about "capitalised gibberish" with some amusement. Do a search for "CRO" on Kelly's page, and you will see what I mean. That is a genuine example of jargon throwing a spanner in someone's mental processes. Carcharoth 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh d*mn. Nae'blis has already pointed this out. Forget I said anything. I'll go back to finding references for this annoying article I'm trying to save. Carcharoth 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORLY! - David Gerard 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YA RLY. :-) Carcharoth 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion.

I hope I didn't come across as uncivil to you on Kelly Martin's talk page. If I did, I apologize. Acalamari 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh don't worry :-) - David Gerard 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I put Category:Critics of Scientology on CfD, but I think I should've told you first as you created it. I did this mostly for consistency with the decision on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 13#Category:Critics of Islam.--T. Anthony 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre

What on earth is AvB's problem regarding the Gaimans? The discussion I'm having on Talk:Neil Gaiman beggars belief... -- ChrisO 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There is no "AvB's problem regarding the Gaimans". I took up some chores at the BLPNB some time ago. Unlike ChrisO I do not have a POV regarding Scientology and pick up cases as time permits. My understanding of the relevant policies is shaping up nicely. In most cases editors accept my intervention. ChrisO apparently finds my interpretation of WP:BLP too strict. Another editor found it too lenient. Both have cast aspersions on my understanding of policy and motivation. People are most welcome to discuss policy with me. But questioning my motivation? Behind my back? That's what I consider bizarre. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is bizarre is the degree to which you appear to be using unthinking adherence to your interpretation of policy ahead of anything resembling obvious good sense. Talk:David Gaiman is the only place I've seen anyone ever seriously claim they're not related - David Gerard 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We ended up with the bizarre situation of being able to say in the Neil Gaiman article that his father was David Gaiman, a South Coast businessman, his mother was Sheila Gaiman, a pharmacist, and the family moved to East Grinstead in 1965; but we couldn't say that this was the same person as David Gaiman, a south coast businessman married to Sheila, a pharmacist, with a son called Neil, who moved to East Grinstead in 1965. I would defy anyone to find the logic in that situation. It's patently obvious that it's the same family. I was lucky enough (and it was a complete fluke) to find a newspaper article that stated the relationship explicitly, but even before then we had enough reliably-sourced evidence to make the connection. -- ChrisO 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unthinking adherence" - my arguments were not only based on my interpretation of policies, experience in applying them, or my own common sense. Common sense and policy arguments had also been advanced by other editors removing the same info. To the degree I've repeated the latter, you are criticizing them as much as you're criticizing me.
  • "... is the only place ... related" (David) and "... It's patently obvious ..." (Chris) - straw men. I was not advancing the bizarre notion that they are not father and son.
  • I still have my doubts about the wisdom of outing Neil to the rest of the world in Wikipedia based on a revelation in a local paper that linked him with Scientology. But as I wrote after ChrisO had found a source: I'm not reverting. The info is in the articles. I'm not disputing it. You've got what you wanted. You're convinced this will have no consequences. Flogging this dead horse serves no purpose whatsoever. AvB ÷ talk 09:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi David. I see that you have checkuser privileges. Wonder if User:Like.liberation is anyone we know. Laff. Take care. --Justanother 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In vain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Jimbo_on_.27.27Today.27.27 - as an ex-perthite, you have been cited by me as what the Australian project currently needs - having taken the liberty - thought I should tell you. Trust all is well - he have had Jimmy in Perth last tuesday. cheers SatuSuro 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment there - it seems the eastern staters have been trying to set up a wiki media thing that should technically handle the thing - but it dosnt look like its happening much. cheers SatuSuro 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I brought back memories of your home state - seeing you edit wittenoom - I do hope you never had rels/family who suffered from having lived there at all! SatuSuro 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive header

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it. (more...)
Archive – By email – More policies...

Inspired by this (your bit, not Duja's) – Steel 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on ANI

And enabling behaviour toward such trivial querulousness is a waste of everyone's time. Newyorkbrad, I'm looking at you."

To the best of my recollection, my contributions to the discussion consisted of (1) letting Kelly Martin know that one of her edits was the subject of an ANI thread, which she thanked me for; (2) commenting that it was unhelpful to the discussion to bring up that an editor was on probation from a completely unrelated arbitration case from a year ago, which I think is true; and (3) advising Kelly that another user (a well-respected editor and administrator in good standing) had said he was thinking of taking a break from Wikipedia, as stated on his talkpage, because of the tone and content of some of her remarks, and urging that she tone it down a bit (and incidentially sending an e-mail to that user asking him to stay with the project, which hopefully will be helpful to the situation). Can I ask which of my comments you consider as "enabling behavior," or was it something else I've missed? Newyorkbrad 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Crotalus. The user who was considering leaving was, judging by the deletion logs, the one who was threatening her on her talk page a few days ago - David Gerard 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No GFDL

Excuse me, but what gives you the right to delete a template with NO discussion, especially one that was nominated for deletion and the consensus was KEEP.--CyberGhostface 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User no gfdl. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the deletion reason didn't go into the log. The reason was that it directly and blithely spits in the face of shiny new Foundation policy since the last TFD. I see the current TFD is going quite badly for it for this reason. If you want to advocate directly against the Wikimedia Foundation's actual legal mission statement, then Wikipedia is not a suitable place to use the resources of to this end - David Gerard 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr Piotrus

Hi, David. I have posted a question for you on the RFAR talk,[6] I hope you will reply. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see. I won't bother you again then. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use

That's fine and dandy that you're willing to remove all of the images form the Naruto articles, but might I ask why you're bypassing {{orfud}} tagging? ~SnapperTo 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do see a problem with some of the articles, you seem to be going a bit overboard with the removal of the images. If only two images were allowed per the fair use policy, I would say Jabba the Hutt, a featured article, wouldn't have them. I would suggest bringing it up on the talk page of the main article, and asking the related users to take care of it. If in a week or so, it still seems that it's a violation, do whatever you need to do. Nemu 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll go the hack with more care in future - David Gerard 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin RFC

Umm...shouldn't it still exist. If I read right, we have 48 hours. It hasn't been two days yet. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you may be right - I'll check - David Gerard 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct - I can't count. Undeleted - David Gerard 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your ANI comment: so tried and failed isn't warning the user about incivilty and having her ignoring it and removed it? --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSmart Block

Hi David, thank you very much for the extremely timely block of the dsmart disruptive account, Talk:Derek_Smart#Complaints_filed_with_Jimbo_Wales_.26_Wiki_Foundation. I also wanted to let you know that the block should also be logged here, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, at least that is my understanding of the ArbCom ruling, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart Regards, Bill Huffman 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken care of by someone else. I had assumed that the blocker was supposed to do it. Sorry, I didn't take care of it myself. Thanks again, Bill Huffman 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dsmart-3000ad

This user who you blocked for legal threats has had an unblock request turned down. I notice that he's now asking again, this time stating "I hereby retract any/all perceived legal threats". However, he then adds that he will instead "take whatever action is deemed necessary by my attorneys and in conjunction with the Wiki Foundation". I've declined the request pending referral to you as the blocking admin. --kingboyk 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, I just reviewed the text Kingboyk refers to, and I think it's still squarely in 'legal threat' territory. He's advocating a lawsuit against an editor, and offering to work with Wikimedia foundation to do it. That's super duper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a retraction of all threats? Well, I'd suggest it's not really anything of the sort. Of course, whatever his legal chances or his status as an editor, if we're going to have Derek Smart as an article then we should make it the best article we can. To this end I've put a note on WP:BLPN asking for experienced living bio editors to go over it with a fine-toothed comb - David Gerard 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hullo David,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop. (I figure you already knew this; just making sure).

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, David Gerard, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishman Affidavit

You said the Fishman documents are considered "wrong", but only one part of them is considered suspect, right? Aren't they considered mostly right, since the CoS objected to all parts of it but one? wikipediatrix 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant specifically about OT VIII, since Talk:OT VIII was the talk page I said that on :-) - David Gerard 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, heh... but it made it sound as if it throws the entire Fishman Affidavit into doubt, which I don't think it does. wikipediatrix 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the wording in the article (at the expense of the sentence structure) - David Gerard 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Land

David, if you have trouble with these chaps, let me know and I will do my best to deal with them. The blog posts you made over there yesterday were a bit inflammatory. That's no problem, but it may not be the most effective way to counteract SEO spam. We are dealing with a situation of ignorance, not malice. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question that in Seth Finkelstein's case, but anyway - David Gerard
I agree with you there! Jehochman (talk/contrib) 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! There is a fallacy of the excluded middle in evidence. -- Seth Finkelstein 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, do you think I did the wrong thing by giving an interview to Stephan? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link? They asked if I'd do an email interview and I said "sure, why not", but haven't heard back - David Gerard 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January I gave an interview to Stephan. He recycled some of my quotations for this piece. I wasn't too happy about how he spun things, but because I've met Stephan, I know he's a nice person. His confusion is sincere, so rather than slamming him, I pointed Durova to the article. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's who you are :-) I hope the readers take Durova's article on board - David Gerard 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser

Hi there. I note you were involved in this checkuser. I'm am not sure what policy is on checkuser, but I do feel it would have been nice if someone had told me about it. All I am able to say on the matter is that I have no idea where those edits came from. I live in a shared house, as does my girlfriend Jen Kettle (talk · contribs), though we do not live together. We also both use Orange, so I guess could have similar IPs. We both also leave our Wi-Fi open for our Neighbours, with whom we get on very well, and have often discussed wiki and the sometimes hilarious arguements I seem to get into, particularly with the user who requested the check. I do not know if those edits were from housemates, neighbours or someone else, but I know I did not make them, and I'm sure Jen didn't either. I enjoy editing wiki, and did not come here to be consistently dragged into daffed debates/arguements. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not - David Gerard 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Jen Kettle connected with the Film Unit in Sheffield. I was surprised at the wide range of IP addresses given - is it the case that LJS has logged on (as LJS) from all these IP addresses at some point? -- roundhouse 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is a Jen Kettle in Sheffield, there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt Lewis when he says this but as David has noted the pattern of edits is somewhat suspicious. Whilst this may be others who have been made aware of conflicts Lewis has found himself in, it does seem slightly unlikely that the edits would be made without Lewis knowing. For example, the prodding of a userpage doesn't seem like something someone with little knowledge of Wikipedia would do. I'd draw his attention to the Meatpuppets section of the sock puppetry policy which is certainly relevant. Adambro 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as confirmed in the RFCU. On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid - David Gerard 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). Agreed, but a sockpuppet and meatpuppet are not the same, so it is wrong to try and convinct me of the former, in addition to the suggestion that Jen is merely an extension of me (she'd have a right go at you about that! :) ). The wireless systems each of us have is set up as a network, with my (or my girlfriend's) PC set up as server/master, and all others connecting via it, so that it cannot be used without our knowing, and the master has to dial up to the router every time it is turned on. This would likely explain the many IPs alluded to by Pc1dmn, and also the timings of the attacks. I do not make a habit of making personal attacks on users (although heated debates have been known), and I bear no grudge against the user - indeed, on two occasions, I actually reverted the vandalism![7][8]
Incidentally, I am currently on a university computer, so I assume my IP will be different again. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you lock down your wifi, then. Any WEP is provably crackable in two minutes or less; WPA is the only sensible option - David Gerard 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, from tomorrow, I guess I'll have to close it. I don't want to, but I suppose it's the only way. I do not need this. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [9] Andy Mabbett 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI: still denying sock-puppetry; and evading a block to do so. Andy Mabbett 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain admins

David, it seems to me that some admins are pedantic and hypercritical. I post a clear notice for advice, and in return, receive petty, even irrelevant criticism. Should I post at all to AN/I? --Fahrenheit451 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you should. But living bios really are our biggest headache. Again, I advise you to ask JzG's advice - he's one of the best admins for dealing with troublesome living bio issues, and is utterly on the level and with the forces of good - David Gerard 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Errabee

# Support, probably not insane - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

... [10] [11] [12]. --Gmaxwell 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say probably! And I stand by the usefulness of such a support - David Gerard 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka

Eureka! http://www.current.tv/google/GC03104 . Pass it on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number

You wrote in a recent edit summary: "The phrase "illegal number" is all over the discussion in the big world, and we have an article to link to". Actually, we don't have an article to link to. The same user who made the deletion you were undoing, also changed Illegal number to a redirect back to AACS encryption key controversy. I don't want to revert him for fear of escalating the existing friction between him and myself, but thought you'd want to know. 67.158.73.188 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! I've redirected it to Illegal prime, which is actually a useful discussion of the concept - David Gerard 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access to #wikipedia-en-admins

David, I would appreciate access to theis channel. Nick: jossi. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - do you have an IRC cloak set up? (e.g. Wikipedia/jossi) - if not, then email me with what your name shows up as when you do /whois jossi (e.g. I get (n=fun@wikimedia/DavidGerard): Not dead yet, but don't push it - David Gerard 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am logged on now at #wikipedia-en and I show up as jossi, username: jossif. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I set up a cloak? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channel_cloaks - ask JamesF or Xyrael- or go to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~swhitton/cloaks - David Gerard 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-wrestling vandalism

Thanks for blocking all of the vandal reincarnations on the wrestling articles. User:Cabel Starcraft is another one of those one-shot accounts created on a open proxy that needs blocking. I also noticed that on the article Daniel Garcia Soto, that the vandals were never reverted, so is there a list of these pages that I can check through to make sure he was reverted completely? — The Future 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta go now, but basically all the edits by all the names I just blocked ... - David Gerard 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll get on it. — The Future 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And.. finished reverting.. — The Future 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is User:Kingstonekids blocked as a User:JB196 sock when it only has one edit and its not connected to wrestling? Secretlondon 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been one of the open proxy one-off edits, as per the block reason in the next wave. - David Gerard 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.75.73.158's block

There's some part of the justification for 72.75.73.158's block that I don't understand. Did you do a CheckUser to see if 72.75.73.158 was a sockpuppet of an existing user? I've checked out that user's talk page, and I feel Geo Swan (talk · contribs) misled people in his AN/I complaint against 72.75.73.158. Geo Swan first went to target the user's anonymity on Wikipedia, and claimed that he was using it as a protective shield against repercussions for his action. 72.75.73.158 made two mistaken reports on articles that Geo Swan created, but he's made hundreds of accurate ones. Surely, making an occasional mistake on CSD tagging, and then justifying the reason for deletion in a civil manner can't be a blockable offense?

After 72.75.73.158 justified tagging the article for deletion, Geo Swan immediately went on a tangent and started to target the user's anonymity here on Wikipedia. 72.75.73.158 said he/she didn't want to discuss the matter, but Geo Swan kept pestering 72.75.73.158 on the issue. It seems that Geo Swan drew his own conclusions about 72.75.73.158, and misled people at AN/I by posing his interpretation of the IP's belief about anonymity. I feel that this was in retaliation for the deletion of the articles, and it doesn't seem fair that 72.75.73.158 was not allowed to participate in the discussion on his talk page, or at AN/I. If there is some sockpuppetry issue that I'm not aware of, then please let me know, because as of now, I'm still thinking this was not a totally reasonable block. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has revealed themselves and officially doesn't care publicly: User talk:Dennette#Anonymous_WikiGnome_or_Sockpuppet.3F. Read that section carefully. I'm really not sure what to do in this case - David Gerard 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree Geo was taunting. If you can offer Dennette continuing friendly guidance, that'd be the best thing for all. I've unblocked the IP - David Gerard 23:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Block by error

Not a problem... Errors happen.

Try not to hurt the wall to much, your heart was in the right place :)

- J Greb 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO AN ENTIRE TOWN IN CANADA. Evidently I need to drink my kitten blood when it's fresh - David Gerard 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about RefBot? Or do I need to add kitten blood to its capabilities before getting a review? (SEWilco 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A Survival Guide to SEO & Wikipedia

A Survival Guide to SEO & Wikipedia, Search Engine Land. Durova seems to be taking a break, so you might want to bring your LART. I've commented already. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming death

When is this scheduled to happen? I need to schedule being out of town, or something... KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per an arbitrator's request, the formal opening has been delayed until tomorrow, but absent a last-minute change in the voting, the pages will be waiting for you then. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened. Newyorkbrad 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of JB196

Hi, the story so far is at the diffs here and here. Not only has User:Pharoahski taken over from where the socks left off but he is editing in the manner of an experinced editor not a newbie. I am inclined to block but would welcome your advice first. TerriersFan 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for the personal attack! It's nice to be talked about in front of my face :\. Matthew 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the honorable gentleman to Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content#Excess_use_of_screenshots, where this issue was last hashed out ad nauseam. (e.g. "Because we are dealing with content that is non-free, we do not need a compelling reason to remove them; we need, per WP:NFCC#8 a compelling reason to include them.") I also fear I must suggest to him that if he insists he's right and lots of experienced users say he's wrong, that he consider in passing that he might be wrong and stop looking for loopholes where there are none - David Gerard 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I expect an admin, of all editors, to have a much better understanding of why Wikimedia's free content policies - David Gerard 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information; he's not an administrator. He's had three RfAs [13][14][15], all of which failed. --Durin 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been thinking of someone else - David Gerard 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrubbery, English

Can you take a quick look at this edit in Shrubbery? It doesn't look like right to me, but it seems to be neither vandalism nor an accident. Rl 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky amusing punnery, strikes me as - David Gerard 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rl 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need user and talk page protection

Hello ... I would appreciate it if you would have a look at some of my sandbox pages, and if you would WP:SALT User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome and User Talk:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome to prevent its actual use as a user name ... that way we can continue to talk about me as my IP address changes without having to refer to my true identity each time ... please see Anonymous WikiGnome or Sockpuppet? ... I know that the archives will always contain my true name, but I'd also like to use it as the "example" of the bogosity of registration in some of the essays and examples that I would like to eventually submit to New pages patrol, like What to do when a speedy delete tag is removed ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to salt a username is to register it yourself then forget the password - David Gerard 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wouldn't that be considered "creating a sockpuppet?" That's exactly what I was trying to avoid! OTOH, if I never make any edits using the account, then it really can't be called a sock.
But I have a greater concern which coincidently just manifested itself ... please see User talk:72.75.73.158#removing db-nouser tag ... without a protected User page, any anon could place a {{db-nouser}} on the page, and with no edits since creation, and reasonable admin would probably just zap it.
Well, on your advice, I shall create a "fictitious" user account that I will never use for edits, nor shall I ever make any edits to the User or Talk pages, but I'm sure that Some Other Editor will place a {{Welcome}} on it inside of a month, and then there will be activity on the Talk page. <Sigh!>
If anyone accuses me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point," then I'll just point them at this conversation. —68.239.79.82 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up ... OK, I created the account, and was thinking maybe Just One Edit ... what do you think of copying User talk:68.239.79.82/WikiGnome to that User Talk page as the sole entry, so that it can be referenced instead of my sandbox page?
I guess that the dates in the signatures would be bogus, but right now, those are bogus signatures anyway. (Been up for 36 hours ... think I'll crash now. :-) —68.239.79.82 08:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justanother stuff

David, the identified user seems to be attacking me here:User_talk:Justanother#F451.2C_are_you_.22truth-challenged.22.3F. Any suggestions of what I should do about it?--Fahrenheit451 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remain calm and loving in attitude, and if someone insists on digging a hole for themselves, you probably can't stop them. Think of every edit henceforth as arbitration evidence if it helps - David Gerard 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that other users may have the same idea in mind: User:Orsini/Sandbox3, User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3... Smee 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate your mature view of wikipedia editing, David. So these events are a "Prelude to a Wake"?--Fahrenheit451 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say do well by doing good, and not being baited by an organisation with actual training courses in baiting people - David Gerard 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, perhaps we had all forgotten for a moment, about their expertise in that arena... Smee 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, and if I were black I would be a good dancer too; but I am Irish so I will just have to get drunk. --Justanother 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be marvellously apposite analogies if they had to pay to take courses to gain said skills - David Gerard 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have only finished my HBD course. I have yet to do the HBB course. --Justanother 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Security

I'm trying to make policy by documenting what happened, and what was decided to be the right thing in retrospect. Would you like to take a look at this and fix any glaring errors? --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Resort Deletions

Thank you for striking your comment about me nominating articles "for the sake of it". That single comment has bothered me all day. I really feel I am trying to do what I think is best for wikipedia. I understand a couple of my nominations were done with haste and the "Keep" comments have reversed my opinion on several. C5mjohn 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actively working on being less of a dick *ahem* - David Gerard 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, you described me as "user page-less." I prefer not to have a user page describing me because I like to think people would judge you by your body of edits and actions rather then any self-described expertise or authority. question: Is this a bad angle to take? Should I at least describe my hobbies or my life so as to gain credibility? I just find it difficult to believe that wikipedia has such a focus on "sources" and "verifiability" but, at the same time, allow all editors to make any claim of expertise or experience imaginable to gain credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C5mjohn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
More assholism on my part, sorry. FWIW, a lot of people redirect their User: page to their User Talk: for this reason - David Gerard 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to suggest the same thing. Whenever a "red user" does something "non-newbie-ish", my first thought is "SPA" so I check contributions to see if it is. --Ron Ritzman 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Barty crouch jr.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Barty crouch jr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I actually uploaded a shrunken version because the original was HUGE. If it's orphaned, I so don't care.) - David Gerard 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on COI

Why is User:MyWikiBiz permanently blocked, and others with clear financial and other COI not? These are issues that should be addressed, and discussed at length by the community and Administrators.

User:Burntsauce

Since you ran a CheckUser on the other sockpuppets of JB196, can you run a CheckUser on Burntsauce to see if this is indeed another sockpuppet? There is a discussion on WP:AN about him blanking pro wrestling articles and it seemeed all to familiar. Admins are in favor of his actions so far, but I think that would change if it was determined that a banned editor was making these changes. — The Future 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: #wikipedia-en-admins

Sorry for the lateness of this reply. I'm not sure how to put it onto your page while maintaining the high-class style you have going, so here is how you do it: 

/cs op #wikipedia-en-admins
/mode -o+I yournick *!*@cloak/here

Hope that is helpful. —Sean Whitton / 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Harryosborngotcha.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Harryosborngotcha.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it die, let it die, let it dieeeee! - David Gerard 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it was on its way to the chopping block, I couldn't help noticing that it was pretty huge, being a 256-color png. My itchy fingers insisted on reducing it to 16 colors. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

If you go check the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalee_Holloway , you will see that many of us that have been active on that page are a little peeved. Can you tell us who this mysterious e-mail writer was, and the details of the complaint?Kww 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, which is why I suggested just being good with sourcing and too bad for them apart from that - David Gerard 17:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely asking for fact-checking, and tagging it with a tag known to me. They were curious statements, and I wanted to read up on the source to verify them. Reference stripping is a far cry from what I intended. But I have taken note of your severe warning, and I wonder if being so dead wrong have stripped me with all privileges of a polite and friendly reminder? :( Good day. — Bluerです。 なにか? 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags

FYI, there is a conversation about your removal of some spoiler tags going on at the Help Desk that you may want to comment in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Spoiler#Change_to_.22only_use_sparingly.2C_only_for_brand_new_stuff.22. Notinasnaid 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing spoiler tem,plates en-masse. DES (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing silly and redundant spoiler tags, like those in Plot sections. Kusma (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crying Game elevates the spoiler tag to an NPOV violation, that'll be fun - David Gerard 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and will continue to, revert all removal of spoiler tags from the NetHack page. You obviously did not bother to look at NetHack's recent history or the discussion re spoiler tags. Entro-P 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha...

Hope you don't mind me "borrowing your name" here. I couldn't resist. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braveheart Edits

Please do not remove spoiler tags, as they are required in film articles. If however you feel that there is sufficient documentation either in policy or in FA film articles to back up the removal, please bring them to the article Discussion page. Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are ludicrously unencyclopedic. No-one should be looking up a work of fiction in an encyclopedia and have spoiler tags to contend with. Worse, they blatantly encourage a culture of working around spoilers to the detriment of NPOV - which happens to be a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to be imposing your personal opinion on the readers of this encyclopedia? Where do you get off deciding that "no-one should be doing" something or other? Wahkeenah 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I did ask if you could cite specific Wikipedia policy that opts to not have tags in film articles, no matter how old the film is. I understadn your POV in this matter, but I am asking you to cite some specific policies, As far as I see it, having the spoiler tags is not an end-run around NPOV, but gives the reader fair warning that the info they are going to read might spoil the film or television programs for them. If you feel that the curretn policy and practice is insufficient, I would suggest directing your concerns to the WikiProject film Discussion area. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They encourage people to write around the spoilers rather than write an encyclopedic article. The Crying Game is a typical example. Without the twist in the intro - which should, remember, be a standalone short article - it's not actually NPOV any more, but being written around the spoiler.
In any case, it's grossly unencyclopedic. Name me one other encyclopedia that includes spoiler warnings - David Gerard 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Surely banning spoiler tags encourages people to write around them? If there's a spoiler tag, it means the plot has been explained in full. Removing the tags discourages this. Cop 633 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commend to you the de:wp policy on the subject, which more or less translates:
When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.
- David Gerard 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're imposing your value judgments on everyone else, and it's highly offensive. Who are you to decide whether a viewer should somehow already be familiar with a story? Wahkeenah 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, your unilateral decision to impose your will on the viewers amounts to vandalism, and all of your changes will be reverted. Wahkeenah 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read more of your comments and am even more offended by your condescending value judgment about what the readers of wikipedia "should be doing". That is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You are what is technically known as a "nanny". Wahkeenah 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's all calm down. David, I disagree with your viewpoint here, and I am not sure that quoting the German wikipedia is the best way to state (or paraphrase) how another wiki does it. I have recommended that you explore and discuss expanding the policy regarding films in the WikiFilms project. A grass roots campaign to change policy by example is bound to be contentious with those users familiar with how films in the English language Wiki are put together. If you can cite a policy fromt he English wiki, that would be great. Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to help me revert his edits? Wahkeenah 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that saying "let's have an edit war" on the wiki is probably not the most clueful thing you could do on Wikipedia - David Gerard 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not a threat - it's a comment on the sort of editor the {{tld|spoiler}} tag evidently attracts - David Gerard 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did: NPOV. You know, that fundamental content policy which isn't up for voting, which subprojects can't declare they want to ignore and which if you disagree with you're on the wrong project? - David Gerard 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I am not sure who the edit-war comment was intended for, but if it was in response to my edit summary comment, I would suggest that when an edit is performed and is reverted by another user, and then reverted again, that is the definition of an edit-war. I offered you the opportunity to cite an English wiki policy regarding the subject that specifically pertains to the subject of spoilers.
Perhapos you could explain to me how spoiler warnings violate NPOV so dramatically. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a storm in a teacup I think. The spoiler guideline will be discontinued, it seems: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning --Kim Bruning 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by that you mean that there will be no more spoiler tags allowed, then it's hopeless. The nannies, the fascists have won. The readers be damned. Wahkeenah 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh darn those neutrality fascists! You'd think we were here to write an encyclopedia or something! - David Gerard 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "neutrality" issue. You are using that as a red herring to impose your will on the readers of wikipedia. Wahkeenah 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So go to that page and make a convincing argument. It's not a vote, a really convincing argument may actually sway hearts and minds - David Gerard 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to. But the nannies don't get the point. They are talking in double-think: that giving readers a choice is somehow "censorship", when nothing is being censored by the presence of a "spoiler" tag. Wahkeenah 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's like the Soup Nazi, except this time, he's forcing the information down your throat instead of censoring it so it can't get to you. Darn, I always thought I could trust Wikipedia to give me information but I guess the POV cabal is trying to stop that. Axem Titanium 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest that people DNFT, and be a bit more explanatory. Perhaps you can avoid the sniping of others and address the question put to you politely by myself, David. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly translate. I don't talk in abbreviations, unlike that kid in the cellphone ad. Wahkeenah 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the MFD itself (and I don't know what DNFT means either, FWIW) - David Gerard 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not fucking t____?" As for the "spoilers" in Braveheart, I'll give you a hint: it doesn't end well for the Scots. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not feed the troll (ish behavior), aka WP:DNFT. Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings

I expressed my views at some length on why I think spoiler warnigns should be retained in this edit in the relevant centralized discussion. I refer you there for my views, and to discuss the general issue I don't quite see the point of your rather snarky message to me "I am pleased to see the current version of this odious and unencyclopedic template points out that sections headed "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" are extremely likely to contain plot elements" except to emphasize that you dislike this tempalte and disagree with my views. I knew that already. If a consensus develops not to use spoiler warnings, or to greatly restrict their use, i will of course go along. What will you do if the consensus is to continue or only slightly restrict their use, as I think should be done? DES (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider not having it used stupidly (sections already marked "Plot summary"? Character articles? Author biographies? Anagram?!) a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. I've added spoiler templates myself in the past, but the present situation is utterly and comprehensively on crack - David Gerard 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that spoiler is over used, and I would make some attempts to restrict it. I agree that using it in some of the places you cite is uncalled for (although I think that an article-by-article determination would be needed for such things as Character articles and Author biographies, even though I think that in most such cases spoiler warnings should not be used). I disagree with your position on not using it in "Plot summary" sections. For one thing, if it were banned there, it would IMO only lead to edit wars about omitting "spoilers" completely. For another, although strictly speaking such warnings are redundant, i think that in fact they are useful in that situation to people who do in fact want to avoid spoilers. I presented a list of 8 suggestions in my comments linked above: I repeat them here:
    1. Spoiler warnings should not be used on classic, widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare, or the works of Homer.
    2. However, spoiler warnings should not be limited to recently released works -- many long -released works are new to particular readers.
    3. Significant facts should not normally be omitted from an article lead merely to avoid spoilers. This may be temporarily suspended for unreleased or recently released works.
    4. There should normally be a marker used to indicate the end of a section that contains spoilers, if a spoiler warning is used.
    5. Editors should be urged to consider whether plot details are really "spoilers". Works where the plot details are relatively obvious and not in any way surprising, and no attempt seems to be made to surprise the reader should probably not have spoiler warnings used at all.
    6. Plot sections in general should be reduced in size ans scope. WP:FICT calls for this now, but is widely ignored.
    7. The use or non-use of spoiler warnings in a particular article should be a matter of consensus among the editors of that article, to be determined on its talk page, just as with all other matters of article content. Drastic changes without consensus are discouraged.
    8. The general format of spoiler warnings should be uniform across wikipedia, and should be a matter of general consensus. Drastic changes should not be made without seeking consensus for the change.
I hope you would find something along these lines a basis for discussion. DES (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits

re overused of spoiler notice for routine synopses. Good citation; that alone nips a lof of angst in the bud. Glad to you on the comics pages! --Tenebrae 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock?

Hello. Yesterday, I got blocked due to one of your IP/proxy blocks (to Ymous, it said)... saying that many accounts were being blocked due to sockpuppets... or something. Why on earth did did this happen? I do not want this to happen again. I'm a great editor who tirelessly contributes solid information to Wikipedia. I am very upset by this accident. What can I do to prevent a future accidental block? - hmwithtalk 13:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander (series) edits

I think the title isn't really apt, as the article is an overview of the Highlander franchise, covering movies, television series, cartoons and even comic books. I don't know how to change it, or I would have done so by now. The article is a disaster. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment regarding your deletion of spoilers . . .

Good show! I recommend you read Why tags are evil, if you have not yet done so. You will appreciate it. Unschool 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot spoilers

If you're going to make wholesale changes by removing plot spoiler warnings wherever they exist, at least have the courtesy to provide a link to the relevant policy discussion/decision that supports (presuming that's what the consensus was) your actions. Not a dog 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access to #wikipedia-en-admins

I got my cloak: wikipedia/jossi, and I would want access to #wikipedia-en-admins. Where do I ask for this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have it. Try /cs invite #wikipedia-en-admins - David Gerard 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful

I am very grateful for what you're doing. I thought it was just our little clique of editors at the Final Fantasy WikiProject who banned the spoiler tags. Finally, a year later, the word of intelligence is spreading. — Deckiller 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually hate spoilers, I've placed them myself. But I note that only a very few of my removals of what I consider inappropriate spoilers are standing. This seems to suggest that actually, the wiki community either agrees or doesn't disagree - David Gerard 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

If you're on this page to complain about spoilers, check out Ned Scott's proposal at Wikipedia:Spoiler warnings. I like it - David Gerard 15:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{tl:spoiler}}

I've unblocked you even though it was me you were mass-reverting ... I don't hate spoilers, I've placed them myself, I just hate obviously stupid ones - David Gerard 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that just about every removal I've done of an IMO inappropriate spoiler tag has stood ... which suggests that in practice, "consensus" is actually against over-spoilering - David Gerard 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and #¤%&@ -- that makes it entirely too difficult to check if you broke WP:AWB rules. I'll leave that to 87, who's better at it.
I point out, as devil's advocate if not anything else, that it's been less than a day, that most of those are rather low-profile articles, and that restoration of spoiler tags takes rather more thought than the usual maintenance.
As for what you've wrought, there's a reason for the redundancy that I don't think you've considered: Spoiler and endspoiler tags cordon off parts of the article, parts that often start with the plot section because that comes very early in our common article structure, but may or may not end there. Without spoiler tags, the reader must assume that the entire article can contain spoilers. Last Tuesday, I found a book on a library sale and checked our coverage. I found a two-line plot synopsis, the spoiler tag, a plot summary, the endspoiler tag, a nifty spoiler-free "themes" section, and external links. I was pleased with what I read and bought it, which I would not have been able to do without the tags.
Finally, you mentioned in the discussion that you'd support a note about it on the spoiler template itself. I agree. There's no invitation to discussion over a public matter, so a measure much bigger than, say, any webcomic AfD is currently getting considerably less exposure than one of those would. That just don't jive (or whatever). If a note on the template is unacceptable, what say you to trying to get this covered on the Signpost? That would be by an outside party, and it could not count as canvassing. --Kizor 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see why they wouldn't cover it. Most interesting thing on the wiki so far this week - David Gerard 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No response so far to a suggestion on the spoiler tag's discussion page to add a MFD-like text... I noticed that the suggestion had gathered support, but no one had implemented it. You could do it yourself, being an admin. --Kizor 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I do I will definitely acquire excess moral approbation! Need someone neutral who thinks it's a good idea - David Gerard 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone who's read enough of the debate to have an informed opinion probably isn't neutral anymore... if we need outsiders, could you make a post on AN/I or a similar page, or should we just start grabbing them by the ankles as they pass by? --Kizor 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Warnings

Hey David, nice job of getting all those spoiler warnings, you got some endspoiler tags I had missed. What concerns me is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#plot actually specifically suggested putting spoiler warnings in a plot summary. I went ahead and changed it, but could use your thoughts on the relevant talk page, as this seems to be the page most people cite when they revert spoiler-destroying edits. Jussen 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant talk page at present is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning - if you go to the bottom, you'll see a request for actual evidence our readers care or ever cared about spoiler warnings. You could point them there - David Gerard 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you missed a {{tld|spoiler-end}} in Good Will Hunting, so I have reverted you. When doing a mass edit, it would be very helpful to say something more informative than "rm redundant - plot summaries obviously contain plot elements - using AWB" in the edsum. From this edsum it would be impossible to know if anyone other than you found these warnings "obviously redundant". I would have included the phrase "per Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning" in my edsum. BTW, I am fine with removing both of them. --Jtir 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This run I'm zapping spoiler tags where they're on a ==Plot summary== or equivalent header. I keep missing the many, many variants on end-spoiler. Also, I'm removing them per self-evident ridiculousness, not per that discussion, so don't want to give the impression I'm using that as my justification - David Gerard 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't know about the variants. Naming conventions don't seem to be a natural product of WP. --Jtir 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else removed both tags. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Babel

Why remove the spoiler tags from Library of Babel? Not that I would mind removing spoiler tags altogether, but if we are going to have them, it would seem they belong here. The piece, although written like an essay, is a work of speculative fiction, set in a world where the "Library" actually exists. Your remark ("nonfiction!") suggests that you might not be aware of that, though I think the article is pretty clear by referring to it as a "short story". - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see from discussion above that the policy may have changed. Fine with me, but then this was a somewhat misleading edit summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was an error in the edit summary. It should have been "redundant tag - plot summaries contain plot elements" - David Gerard 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia,

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on German Wikipedia,, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because German Wikipedia, fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This redirect doesn't make sense (just the actual article name with a comma added, no pages link here)


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting German Wikipedia,, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended spoiler comment

When you removed the {{tld|spoiler}} from Suspended in this edit, you wrote "character articles should be made of plot elements using AWB" as your edit summary. I don't understand what you're saying. Could you clairify? (I appreciate that "using AWB" is probably unrelated and just notes which tool you're using.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is AutoWikiBrowser, a Wiki-oriented browser that makes repetitive edits easy. I probably used the wrong subject line, I did on a few of these - David Gerard 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was unclear. My core question is: why did you delete the {{tld|spoiler}} from Suspended? You originally deleted with a comment of "(rm redundant; plot summaries will obviously contain plot elements using AWB)" I re-added with with "re-add {{tld|spoiler}}. "Background" doesn't usually imply a spoiler, but this does does include some." You then re-deleted it. I think my reasoning stands; that a "Background" section doesn't necessarily imply the existence of spoilers, so it warrants the warning. Before I re-add it, I wanted to better understand your reasoning. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia for Schools

David, I sent you an email about Wikipedia: Wikipedia CD Selection http://schools-wikipedia.org which I have been discussing with Anthere. I don't know if you got the emails safely: if so please just let me know, otherwise I will repost here. --BozMo talk 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Just not been hot on my email lately ... um, will get back to you soonish! ish. - David Gerard 12:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Please remove the crap you left at Ultimate fate of the universe. I suppose it's too much to ask you to respect the article categorisation? (NB it was listed on the SF themes page long ago). PaddyLeahy

Literary themes are nonfiction. If a spoiler warning seems appropriate in a nonfiction article, it means the material that would warrant spoilering is cruft and shouldn't be there - David Gerard 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've unblocked Lexicon as justified on his talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, as long as he doesn't do anything so blitheringly stupid again. Mass WP:NONFREE violation from an admin?! - David Gerard 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My past experiences with the hair splitting pedantry of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (especially with respect to the GNU Free Documentation License) have taught me that "free" is sometimes a very contentious issue in which not everyone agrees or inteprets it the same way. The fact that Lexicon was discussing it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents prior to your block shows that he was acting with more good faith than you had in preemptively blocking him. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through several hundred kilobytes of ANI every time someone is behaving in a manner indistinguishable from a clear and present danger - David Gerard 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of spoiler warnings

Isn't this a rather controversial issue, and thus AWB should not be used to do it? (Rules of use: Don't do anything controversial with it.) hbdragon88 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above on this talk page, where I have answered this question. That almost all of them are staying despoilered indicates it in fact isn't - David Gerard 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
roffle, I didn't see the six other topics where you answered it. hbdragon88 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal Mangum Headshot.jpg

That image was not replaceable with a free one. Voretus 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is she dead? - David Gerard 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. I don't think consensus is dead, either. Voretus 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" (i.e. five people in a strawpoll) doesn't override WP:BLP either. Read and learn - David Gerard 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does BLP factor into that image, I'm blind and horrible at reading Voretus 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in only the article about her, which is now a redirect to the incident for good reason - David Gerard 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It was in only the article about her ..." That is not true, the image was also on the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal article page. Duke53 | Talk 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice, now why was it redirected? There wasn't even a courtesy reason given in an edit summary or on the article talk page so I would expect people to be confused Voretus 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:BLP and I don't see the problem. Could you be a little more specific what the issue was? The issue of whether or not the page should be deleted was resolved nearly a year ago, and the consensus was that it should be kept. If there is some other reason to delete it, then I think it would be helpful for someone to articulate that reason rather than simply act arbitrarily and capriciously. Unlearned hand 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if a person is only famous for one incident - and no-one has really got any sources to write a full biography of them beyond that incident, then we can't have a biography. A biography is about the life of an individual, but if all we have is information about one incident, then we can have an article about the incident, but not about the individual. It's really a matter of what the sources make possible.--Docg 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, in this case, there were a number of articles written about Ms. Mangum that gave an overview of her life. Since that information was available and published by reputable sources, a full and balanced biography was possible. In fact, given that Mike Nifong's ethics trial is coming up next month, it seems likely that we have not heard the last from Ms. Mangum. Unlearned hand 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have confused Wikipedia with investigative journalism - David Gerard 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying, and it still doesn't make any sense. Unlearned hand 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I see Moreschi went through this with you a week ago. Remember: in deletion process proceduralism versus minorly notable living bios, the bio is killed unless firmly unkillable. It's a sort of ultimate deletion hammer - David Gerard 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that the decision when the article was RfD was to the contrary. But obviously you know better than the community does. Hell of a way to run a railroad. Unlearned hand 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Is she dead" ? Are we going to go to each article and remove all pictures of living people? Duke53 | Talk 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the "fair use" ones, and particularly the BLP imminent dangers - David Gerard 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically fair use pictures of living people are not allowed. We are a free content encyclopedia.--Docg 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a Divine Right of Wikipedia to write shockingly unbalanced articles about living people so that the woman gets properly punished for her alleged lies, which in my opinion is the reason the article was in the state it was. That's not our job. Non-BLP-compliant articles that are perfect examples of coatracks get whacked, regardless of the opinion of the cabal of the now on the article talk. It's not complex. Moreschi Talk 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. Since all the information came from reliable, published sources, censoring it from Wikipedia doesn't actually accomplish anything more than making Wikipedia less informative. Now someone looking for information on Ms. Mangum will just go to the next place that Google takes them - where Ms. Mangum will probably get much harsher treatment than she should get on Wikipedia. Unlearned hand 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note

The image has been uploaded again under the title Image:Crystal Gail Mangum Headshot.jpg - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gail Mangum

Listed on WP:RPP for unprotection. I declined for BLP reasons, but you might wish to followup over there - Alison ☺ 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crystal Gail Mangum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. *** Crotalus *** 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags and AWB

Please be more careful when editing with AWB. I've just partially reverted your edit to Stargate Atlantis. While I support removing spoiler tags from plot summaries, which is what you are intending, you actually removed a spoiler tag from a cast section. If spoiler tags are to be allowed at all, that was a correct use of one. You also removed just the endspoiler tag from another spoiler in the section describing the different alien races. Whether that was a legitimate use of a spoiler tag is debatable, but it wasn't simply in a plot summary. More importantly, though, you removed the endspoiler tag without removing the Stargate specific spoiler tag. It would appear you have set AWB to remove spoiler tags automatically - when doing that, you really do need to double check every single edit to make sure it is correct. --Tango 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - David Gerard 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same problem

DW/141/whatever thing - leave it on ANI, kthx - David Gerard 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G10

Need your advice, if you can spare a minute. I made a suggestion here about a possible change to CSD G10...the one which covers BLP. I think it more accurately reflects current interpretation of BLP, but I fear my idea isn't as clear as it could be. Could you peak at it and tell me if I'm even on the right track? Thanks. --InkSplotch 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving spoiler end tags

Please make sure to check for spoiler end tags when removing spoilers; you removed one but not the other on An American Werewolf in London. --McGeddon 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh bugger. Sorry again. I thought I'd nailed every possible variant on the damn end-spoiler (about 10) - David Gerard 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know what article this is about

Because I'm too lazy to type it out. Anyway, I wasn't the one who restored to the orignial version, I just saw it there and started fixing it up. By the way, it does still need to be protected. -Amarkov moo! 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my sincere apologies. It's now a protected redirect - David Gerard 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the DRV closed as restore history and redirect. The closing admin restored history but failed to redirect. Redeleting was not appropriate. I am also going to leave a note on Mangojuice's page. -N 00:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV doesn't get to declare restoration of the history - David Gerard 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David I strongly advise you pay some attention to that DRV. Over 2 dozen editors condemned the unilateral deleting of the page, and your action was overturned. Why are you wheel warring? Mangojuicetalk 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP, as noted. RFAr is --> that way - David Gerard 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, wheel warring is defined as repeating an administrative action when you know another administrator disagrees with it. You have wheel warred. I understand you claim BLP, but you are also, as an administrator, supposed to exercise due caution and discuss with other administrators before undoing their actions. Since you already deleted the article once, and now have done so again for the same reason desite other admins having overturned your actions, it is wheel warring. You are not the only one whose opinion counts, and you are acting like you are. Mangojuicetalk 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Mango. If you thought the DRV to have been improperly closed, you ought to have taken the issue up with Mango first and, in the absence of agreement with him, ought yourself to have taken the matter to AN, RfAr, DRV (we had, after all, [essentially] a DRV of a DRV on the QZ issue), or, hell, RfC. Wheel warring is categorically disfavored, and that many at DRV expressed a preference for a disposition the result of which would not have been a history deletion ought to have suggested to you that there was no clear consensus for the proposition that BLP mandated history deletion and redirection here, such that you should, irrespective of anything else, have been deliberate and cautious; time was not of the essence, and the onus was on you to demonstrate that Mango's closure was plainly wrong/inconsistent with the DRV discussion or otherwise contrary to policy. The AN/I thread focuses at present, of course, principally on Tony and the switched-at-birth DRV and only minimally on CGM, and there is essentially no discussion with respect to whether you acted properly here; I don't believe that such absence is demonstrative of community support for your history deletion, and I hope you'll not infer such support. I'm hopeful that AN/I might produce a consensus for the restoration of most revisions (or, at the very least, demonstrate the lack of consensus for your overturning of Mango's closure), but in the meanwhile I hope you'll consider whether acting first and discussing later was really the best course of action here, especially because, as Mango observes, the DRV largely repudiated your having so done relative to the same article just a few days ago. Cheers, Joe 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mistakenly assume DRV has any say in the matter whatsoever - David Gerard 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now all I need is WP:CSN and I'll have a complete set - David Gerard 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You're in trouble now! --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I hope I don't get RFCed - David Gerard 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For being a general bastard, and getting away with it.
Evil admin - here you deserve this more than the other Satan.--Docg 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that Satan or WP:SATAN? - David Gerard 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lolipops!

... heh. Matthew 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

Why did you remove the infobox? Thanks. TimV.B.{critic & speak}

By sheer stupidity and not paying sufficient attention. My sincere apologies! - David Gerard 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks for clearing that up :-). TimV.B.{critic & speak} 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Removing Spoiler Warnings

I believe your bot may be improperly removing plot spoiler warnings in articles about fictional works. It is claiming to remove "redundant" spoiler warnings, but it appears to be removing all of them. Surely it is not your intent to remove every spoiler warning in the Wikipedia? I understand the rules about avoiding using spoiler warnings per WP:SPOILER, but your bot is removing even ones that are permitted:

  • Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide compelling reasons to insert one. Such reasons should show that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work.
  • A spoiler warning is a courtesy note to readers, such as those who find articles from search engine results.

Please check your bot, I think you (or we) may have a huge job of reverting to do! Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a browser. Read the rest of the talk page, above, before you make a POINTy mass reversion. If you can give me a list of the particular articles you feel this was misapplied on, please do, I'm listening ready to learn. On Alastor Moody, the one you've seen fit to revert, it appears most of the problem is an in-universe plot summary - per WP:SPOILER, things really should be written from the perspective of the real world. See discussion on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler about how Tony Sidaway rewrote the plot summary for An Unearthly Child to be more akin to relevant study material, with an eye to relevance to the non-fan reader, than a simple blow-by-blow recitation - David Gerard 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one that caught my attention at once: Alastor Moody. I already restored the warning. In this case, the spoiler involves exposing a major plot twist which occurs at the very end of the novel Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, where a character who was assumed all along to be "the good guy" turns out in the end to be "the bad guy" instead. There look to be possibly hundreds of other articles where the spoiler warnings got bot-deleted as "redundant", when there was only one. I do not have time to study them all and detail the results to you. Please do not accuse me of making a WP:POINT - this is a good faith effort to make sure you are aware that your bot may be acting in unplanned ways, and appears to possibly be making a disruption. Thanks for your attention. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually just added Template:HarryPotterWiki to Alastor Moody. It links to the Harry Potter Wiki. Maybe some of the spoilerish material could be moved there? It might be more appropriate at a more in-universe focused project. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Crystal Gail Mangum

Welcome, and thank you for deleting the page Crystal Gail Mangum on Wikipedia. Your deletion worked, but I was unable to revert it because I am not an administrator. Please take a look at the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, to learn more about how your future deletions can reflect Wikipedia policy and user consensus. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -N 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested above, shit or get off the pot. Thanks! - David Gerard 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like any other person making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, you shall get up to a level 4 warning, and then I report to AIV. -N 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your grasp of comedy is unequalled - David Gerard 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may be for an RfC. [16]. See my talk page.--Docg 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected your unencylcopdeic tyops yuo rouge adnim vandle - David Gerard 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out of hand, to say the least. Am I the only one who feels as though they'd walked into an episode of the Twilight Zone, or Monty Python? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More like the Jerry Springer show. Maybe we'll turn into an encyclopedia soon.--Docg 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What do you do with a BA/In English?" - David Gerard 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you running for BJAODN? Phil Sandifer 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - David Gerard 02:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, if you would like to experiment (with deletion), please do not use the sandbox! El_C 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Spoiler tag removal

Thanks for pushing this so hard. I thought I was alone in my position against them (well, me and the Final Fantasy WikiProject). Anyway, at last count, about 40000 articles still have spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. Do you plan to remove them all at least once just to test the waters? Axem Titanium 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing hard didn't take much pushing - some people complained, and I have removed some mistakenly (see "by sheer stupidity" above), but the overwhelming reaction is that nobody cares. Which implies nobody did care in the first place, and most of the spoiler tags were placed by people who just thought that was the convention. Wikipedia:Spoiler is much saner now - and basically, if your article still requires a spoiler tag after all those considerations, then it's got enough problems that {{spoiler}} might as well be {{cleanup}}.
I'm not re-removing except in really stupid cases. I can't believe anyone anywhere ever read The Eye of Argon or watched Deep Throat for their plots.
I'm still on AutoWikiBrowser, check User:Misza13/spoilerkill.py for a pywikipedia solution (which he cautions against running in automatic mode 'cos he's still tweaking it - press-the-button-each-time is the only sane way) - David Gerard 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Block Log

Hey there, my name's GrooveDog. I clicked on my block log today, and found that I had a block from you, about 20 days ago. After about 16 minutes since the block, it was released by you with the reasoning "David Gerard is an idiot". Could you please justify this? I don't think I did anything wrong....(nothing on my talk page or in the page history...) Thanks, GrooveDog 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the happy evening I blocked 150 usernames thinking they were all sockpuppets ... then realised a few minutes later that I'd grievously misread the results of a checkuser and blocked everyone using a given proxy. That is to say, I'd blocked many of the Wikipedians in a particular town. This was less than clever. My sincere apologies for this - David Gerard 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post to arbcom-l

Judging by time zones, I'm guessing you'll be the first arbcom-l listadmin to become active, so I just wanted to let you know that I've made a post that needs approval. It's sensitive, so I'd like to make sure it gets through soon. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 10:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and seconded. I saw something like that, you've rooted out quite a bit more. Third and fourth opinions would of course be good ... - David Gerard 12:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when you guys speak that secret checkuser talk. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations.

Your side won the spoiler debate. I've kept advocating for putting our mission before our pride, but I don't know if I would have if disregarding the loss of hope wasn't such a big cultural thing where I grew up. As you can imagine, this has been an incredibly frustrating experience for me, and arguing on the Internet lacks most kinds of emotional release. In keeping with my tradition of bizarre acts, I'd like to ask for your permission to write an oh-so-cathartic tirade in this section that expresses my honest and therefore insulting pent-up views about you and the whole debacle. Such a message would smash right into WP:NPA without express permission. I would keep to the the other rules by including no death or legal threats or those of bodily harm, as well as keeping expletives to a reasonably low level. This would relieve a great deal of wikistress and help me return to a state where I can edit Wikipedia without a risk of attacking the furniture. --Kizor 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rant here in this section as you need to. I'd actually prefer you didn't consider me the author of misfortunes for you or the encyclopedia ... I mean, fundamentally, if the larger mass of Wikipedians cared about spoilers, we'd have seen evidence of it. But I've removed a zillion and had very little sign of anyone caring about the particular spoiler tags; most of the objection has been on procedural grounds, which are way secondary to actual good or bad ideas - David Gerard 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my readers, on living bios

Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about this. Like, they use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.

And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be notable, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.

They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.

I mean, I don't know if we can give Doc glasgow a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to. - David Gerard 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"redundant" spoilers

David--You dropped several spoiler tags from a few of the articles I watch (Bryce Lynch, Blipverts (Max Headroom), and Baby Growbags). The reason you cited was "redundant per Wikipedia:Spoiler"; however, the only guidance wihthin the Wikipedia:Spoiler article that talks about redundancy indicates that the spoiler tag is not required when there is "used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Use such a header instead." In Blipverts (Max Headroom) and Baby Growbags such a redundant plot header exists. But, in the Bryce Lynch artilce there is no such redundant header. Could you explain your logic in dropping spoiler from the Bryce Lynch article? Also, was there a reason why you didn't remove it from the other episode articles that exist?--P Todd 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a character article - fictional character articles would be naturally expected to be composed largely of plot elements, i.e. spoilers. Looking more closely now - David Gerard 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow your logic. If this is the case, then there are many more articles in the Max Headroom category that probably need the spoiler tag removed.--P Todd 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Bryce Lynch, I've added a "Character history" header. That's the sort of thing this sort of thing needs - avoids a {{spoiler}} header, but does give the reader reasonable warning that yes, this section contains story elements to encyclopedic levels! I'm feeding it a long list in alpha order, but feel free to get ahead of me ;-) I'll be going through some later for more custom despoilerisation and sectioning and reordering - quite a lot of our fiction articles are well below the level they should be but are easy to make better - David Gerard 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm afraid I don't understand your reasons, though I'm sure you mean well. Can you explain the edit you did to Belzi's which I had reverted? Lord Sesshomaru
I see no compelling reason listed per Wikipedia:Spoiler - the "==Character history==" would HAVE to be made ENTIRELY of plot elements, as there are no scholarly works on the subject - David Gerard 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

...should be able to do this with about a seven-to-three vote on a straw poll [17]

Your ideas are intriguing. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Arbeit macht die freie Enzyklopädie, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS being subtly different from whatever "consensus" is. That translates to "Abandon hope all ye who enter text", doesn't it? - David Gerard 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many words get a beating around here. But that one has endured a slow and horrible semantic torture. Blanking all policy pages to prevent misunderstanding after a 7-3 «consensus» would be the ultimate revenge of the english language upon Wikipedia. Fucking brilliant. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Run

Sorry I didn't get back to you last night, I didn't get in til late, and you were offline by then. The bot ran just fine, making approximately 1800 edits (out of 2016 instances found of the template). Let me know if you need anything else run in the future. ^demon[omg plz] 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you meant this for someone else ... - David Gerard 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I suspect. Thankfully, I watch your talk page. :) Phil Sandifer 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlists are bad for you! I urge all Wikipedia editors to stop using watchlists - they induce binge-and-purge obsessive editing behaviour and lead to repeated burnout - David Gerard 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared mine of all but a handful of pages two weeks ago. I'm much appier now. Phil Sandifer 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the idiot example"

I acknowledge having over-reacted. However your patience would also be appreciated. You've certainly endured as many attacks as any other editor so you know how it feels to suddenly come upon a new one. You've got a thick skin and set an example for the rest of us. I stayed out of most of the "attack sites" controvers but once I discovered that a blogger was making and hosting repeated attacks, and trying to find and publish personal information, I felt that crossed the line. Mayb I was wrong, maybe the line is elsewhere or doesn't even exist. Maybe personal attacks on Wikipedia editors are acceptable. I'm not sure quite where the consensus is on this and perhaps the written policies don't reflect the consensus. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit my skin is thicker than most - I have had the Church of Scientology actually try to get me fired from jobs for criticising them, so anything less is fine. Wikipedia Review are happy arseclowns and I keep calling D*n**l Br*ndt a sociopath because he keeps acting like one but so far seem to have failed to make the grade for his stalking attention ...
I appreciate you're pissed off. But TNH is actually a sane and approachable human, as you are, and you should probably talk to each other. identifying and resolving whatever the actual issues are is probably the best move - David Gerard 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to her and others have as well. I expect we'll work this out. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way David, if I were the sort of person you've accused me of being, I would have jumped to post the, err, controversial information, on my own blog, and dared Wikipedia to punish me for it (oh boy, would *that* make a great newspaper column!). I hope my not doing so, is definitive disproof of the names you've called me. -- Seth Finkelstein 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On clues, clueful, and cluesness in Wikipedia

You use these terms quite a lot, and would be interesting to read an essay on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

I understand that you have deep concerns regarding my understanding of, and position on, BLP issues. I am making an earnest effort to understand. If you have the time and interest, would you answer some questions regarding BLP, so I would have a better understanding of the circumstances? If so, I could post here or reach you on IRC if you would prefer real-time communication. Thanks! Vassyana 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the congratulations and message on my talk page. I'll try to be patient, since I'm aware that you're very busy. :) Just so you are aware, these are the kinds of questions I have about BLP.[18] Also, Nick was kind enough to explain a bit about OTRS and BLP to me. Thanks again for the message. Be well! Vassyana 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation

Hi there, just wanted to say that it was nice to see you pop in to AFC and create an article, considering that it often feels like an abandoned wasteland in there...I like the idea of adding the pages to a category, but tremble at the mass of work that it would entail. Is it something we could assign to a bot?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Checkuser outcome

The checkuser outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren is obviously invalid. I suspect the confirmation was made based on all the listed editors being customers of Elion and using its public web proxies, or belonging to the same IP address space. (I am not a customer of Elion but of Starman which is probably why I was left out of the "ring".)

Upon advice from robchurch on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en, I ask that you review the checkuser case. Since he also implied you are likely to be busy, I will also be presenting the same request to Raul654, also recommended by him.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look. I'm quite familiar with this sort of situation of a country whose Internet appears to be made of string, as that was Australia's situation for most of the 1990s ... - David Gerard 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :-)
Actually, Estonia *is* unusually centralised (though nowhere near as much as Hungary), and has *large* blocks of consumer broadband links. When the old Soviet-era Estonian Telco first started to replace its mechanical relay based switching stations in 1992, the preliminary estimates indicated that one digital switching station could cover the needs of the whole country. (They ended up using smaller digital switching stations, though, for failsafety and redundancy.) And to this day, there are only three GSM switching centres; even this many only because there are three GSM operators.
It seems rather likely that qualitatively, the current Estonian Internet climate would be somewhat similar to that of Australia's a decade ago. Digwuren 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lookin is much appreciated. Thank You :)--Alexia Death 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and spoiler warnings

I didn't follow the MfD (abroad), but is there an example of a spoiler warning affecting NPOV to hand? Maybe I'm not being imaginative enough, but I fail to see how the two are related? DrumCarton 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soylent Green - which was twisted utterly out of shape as an article to avoid the "spoiler" ... which just happens to be about the most famous thing about the film in recent years. I wonder how many people know the phrase "Soylent Green is people!" even know it's from a movie - David Gerard 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

How have you send up AWB to remove spoilers? Thanks! --TTalk to me 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that includes {{spoiler}}, sort (it feels less like a mountain then for some reason), normal, subst:, put in every variant of {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} (and there are a pile) and substitute with nothing at all. Clean up a bit. Make the odd mistake. Click a button like a rat with an electrode in its head desperate for food pellets. I really oughtta request bot permission for User:Misza13/spoilerkill.py, I'm only up to H and have worn my index finger down to a {{stub}} - David Gerard 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gail Mangum

Sorry to bring this up again. I've looked through the contribution history of the deleted page and the one at 2006 Duke University lacrosse case and it seems that certain parts of the articles were updated on both pages separately but edits were often shared between the two: you can see that for many dates, the versions of certain sections (for instance, the credibility section) are strikingly similar. I believe that in many cases, the changes originated at the bio page and were copied into the scandal page. Ok, so here's the point: the GFDL requires us to keep a revision history and to credit those who created the content, and having the history deleted creates a problem there, so I think there's a problem here that needs to be solved. My understanding is, you deleted the history to disassociate those edits with the name. (Which, honestly, I don't really understand: I mean, there's plenty of sordid stuff at the redirect target and the whole revision history there. But anyway.) So how about this for a solution: I'd like to undelete the history, move the page to, say, Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material, make a note on the scandal talk page about that subpage, and then leave Crystal Gail Mangum as a protected redirect with, effectively, no history. Would this be okay from your point of view? If not, how should we take care of the GFDL issue? Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with leaving histories is that crusaders and the malicious do link to them as "the article on Wikipedia". (This is why the usual Jimbo method of dealing with this stuff is delete completely and create a fresh stub.) If you think you can manage this, go for it - David Gerard 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is that in this case there is still text about her in another article. Anyway. Was that "try Jimbo's solution" or "try your solution?" Mangojuicetalk 15:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest asking Doc glasgow for ideas if you're really not sure. I've left a note on his talk pointing here - David Gerard 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all unsure, *I* think my approach is a good one, but since I'd be overturning your action, I just wanted to make sure we discussed first. Do you mind if I go ahead? Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, in all good judgement :-) - David Gerard 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's done. I even deleted the redirect created by the move, so the old version won't be that easy to locate. Mangojuicetalk 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of Wikipedia Review being needed for NPOV in a wikipedia article

[Deleted - you appear to have come to the talk page of someone you think cares.] - David Gerard 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for purging so many of those unnecessary spoiler tags. Very rarely is there a reason to include a spoiler tag. They almost always appear in sections already identified in some ways as revealing plot, therefore the tag is redundant far more often than not. Thank you, thank you! Doczilla 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure after the noise is cleared, Wikipedia:Spoiler can be applied in a thoughtful and compelling manner - David Gerard 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN ABUSE

How DARE you remove the SPOILER tag from MY article [19]??!!??!!??!! Thatcher131 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM SORRY! !!! I HAEV REMOVED THE <CENTER> TAGS AS WELL!1one!! SROOY FOR NOT SPOTING THTA One!!11!!!! MYSELF!!12!1!!elvene!!1!!! - David Gerard 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scripts are only as smart as the user... Thatcher131 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we're buggered Indeed. (goes to take brane pillz) - David Gerard 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{tld|spoiler}} tags

Have you ever thought of filing a bot request in order to remove the spoiler tags, (i.e. Betacommandbot), because there are a lot of spoiler tags in .en. Miranda 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per a comment above, that's probably a sensible idea ... but clicking the button has provided amusement while sleep deprived and getting covered in baby puke. Back to work tomorrow! - David Gerard 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Spoiler tags in Demon Thief

I think that a spoiler tag is needed to warn the readers that it contains the plot of the book as maybe they havn't read the book and dosn't want to know what happen. So I have readd the spoiler tags in Demon Thief. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! —KGV (Talk) 06:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Spoiler (mentioned in the edit summary), a spoiler needs a compelling reason. "Plot summary" implies the plot is summarised, up to and including the end - David Gerard 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Vern. But maybe you were right.

So I came here because I was kinda peeved you deleted Vern (Film Critic) because he is awesome and "deserves" a wiki page.

But, as advised, I spent ten minutes with Special:Newpages and decided that you probably knew best.

Vern mentioned the deletion on his site: www.geocities.com/outlawvern/ so maybe others will come.

Also, he is the Bestest Film Critic Ever, and if a mention on the See No Evil DVD commentary isn't a third party reference, I don't know what is. That last part was me kidding. --Camipco 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I delete him? Crikey, I don't remember doing that ...
Yeah, Special:Newpages is ... quite an experience. You'll know how it feels to want to KILL ALL THIS GARBAGE AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *cough* - David Gerard 12:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin mistakes lead to admin work

Well, when you make bad admin decisions and don't answer your mail then of course your Talk page gets big.[20] (SEWilco 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If you can't find one of 1200 other admins to bother with you ... there's a Wikipedia jargon term for that - David Gerard 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins afraid of reading the mind of a Cabal member who uses faulty mindreading for his actions? (SEWilco 03:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
BTW, could an admin with this talk page watchlisted and a bit much time on their hands look into SEWilco's problem? I find myself underinspired - David Gerard 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it. For whatever it may be worth, I endorse your block. He is specifically prohibited from making the sort of edits the bot is intended for. I see no reason to unblock that bot account, while leaving an indefinite block in place as long as the ArbCom sanction stands seems perfectly reasonable. Since his main objection seems to be to the "evasion" language, I will unblock and reblock with a specific reference to the ruling to prevent any confusion.[21] Vassyana 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only prohibited from "converting". There are other types of edits than conversion. Don't try to read my mind on what "sorts of edits the bot is intended for". You haven't seen my toolbox. (SEWilco 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've raised this issue for review on the sysop noticeboard. Vassyana 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Calanw.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Calanw.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KILL IT! KILL IT! JUMP UP AND DOWN ON IT! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, MY ROBOTIC FRIEND!
... Oh. This one is definitely allowable. I'll just add the {{fairusein}} tag - David Gerard 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

I will be more careful next time... It will not happen again. G.A.S 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F'in Nonsense

I can understand the desire to improve crediting for BJAODN, but under no circumstances is the right solution to delete everything. BJAODN needs to be restored. --The Cunctator 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure if I ask for sense, we might get some and then THAT will destroy Wikipedia! - David Gerard 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Farix, award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your tireless efforts at removing redundant spoiler templates. —Farix (Talk) 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Template Barnstar

The Template Barnstar
I, Doczilla, additionally award you this Template Barnstar for improving the spoiler template in its usage by removing those redundant spoiler warnings. Doczilla 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Someone is trying to get an interview from me for the WSJ, can I post their e-mail address here so you can contact them? --Smokizzy (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that - send it to me at dgerard@gmail.com or through Wikipedia "email this user" (which should be working now) - David Gerard 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Did you get the email? --Smokizzy (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPCD torrent

Sorry its here: http://shshelp.googlepages.com/schools-wikipedia-full.zip.torrent

--BozMo talk 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Spoiler tag deletion in Glenn Quagmire

As a participant in the {{spoiler}} tag deletion dispute in the article Glenn Quagmire, you are invited to present a statement in the current RfC for that dispute. / edgarde 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD? - David Gerard 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN

I wanted to reply to one of your posts in this thread, but I have long since abandoned email as a useful means of communication and it is over 10,000 bytes so it would get bounced anyways(?). Words: 

> Can I just note the useful, productive and argument-ending nature of
> this thread. Thank you. Do please all continue.
> - d.

It is a useful and productive thread if your goal is getting away with break-
ing the law (and frankly, the only plausible answer from any such thread is a
firm "maybe").  A more apt question would be, should we?  Do we really want
to not respect whatever copyright people might have on this content?  Clearly
the answer is no, unless you are a commie pinko bastard.

A more useful discussion would center around if the GFDL is being followed or
not.  The text can be found at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.txt.  Read it.
Done? Read it again, i'll wait.  A lot of it covers things like invariant
sections, cover texts on print versions, disclaimers, endorsements, and other
things so I'm going to skip around a lot.

BJAODN generally consists of material copied from a Document licensed under
the GFDL.  Does anyone dispute that this would likely be a "Modified Version"
of the Document? 

> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
> modifications and/or translated into another language.

Section 4 covers what must be done to make, copy, or distribute a "Modified
Version".

> 4. MODIFICATIONS
> 
> You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
> the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
> the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
> Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
> and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
> of it.  In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

Straight forward, we must do these things.
...
> A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct
>    from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions
>    (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section
>    of the Document).  You may use the same title as a previous version
>    if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
> B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
>    responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
>    Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
>    Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five),
>    unless they release you from this requirement.

A Title Page is defined as:

> The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself,
> plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material
> this License requires to appear in the title page.  For works in
> formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means
> the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
> preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

What the title of a document for a Wikipedia article is really any guess,
it cannot really be the [[Page title]] as you are supposed change it with
every version unless you have permission.  We don't have [[United States ver.
3959529]] nor do we have explicit permission from all of the authors of the
previous versions to use the same title for the Document.  The best I can 
work out for the Title Page would be the area between a page's title and the
text, which just says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in monobook and
every other skin besides Nostalgia.  None of this of much importance to the
question of BJAODN /specifically/, but this is where the 5 principal authors
clause is.  It is talking about the Title Page, /not/ any other requirements
of attribution.  It is never used on Wikipedia as far as I know.

...

> D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
> E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications
>    adjacent to the other copyright notices.

Don't remove copyright notices is pretty straight forward.  However, if 
someone writes "Copyright (c) 2007 User:A_Vandal" in [[United States]]
can we remove it?  Image watermarks?  I'm not sure if any of these apply
to BJAODN.

> I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
>    to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
>    publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page.  If
>    there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one
>    stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as
>    given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified
>    Version as stated in the previous sentence.

It would be reasonable to say that the history tab could be considered
the "History" section.  If the WMF foundation is the publisher we might be
a little off.  Preserve does not mean put it in a jar of formaldehyde and 
place it in a hermetically sealed vault.  It means don't go screwing around
with the history section.

> J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
>    public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise
>    the network locations given in the Document for previous versions
>    it was based on.  These may be placed in the "History" section.
>    You may omit a network location for a work that was published at
>    least four years before the Document itself, or if the original
>    publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.

I skipped the definition of a Transparent copy, but it basically means "source
code".  For a page on Wikipedia, is there a network location in the Document?
If you can come up with a workable definition of a Document for Wikipedia I 
would be quite surprised.  I cannot find anything that would qualify, so 
check "there isn't one".

...

That is everything we must do for one entry of a BJAODN page. If there is 
only one editor to what we wish to include and it is not based upon any of
the other revisions of the page it is from, we might cover these requirements
with an edit summary that mirrors the original history entry.  If the entry
does depend on the previous text there is not a real workable solution.  We
cannot fork a page off and have the history in two places at once.  A link to
the main article's history page does work, as then the page is tied to the
other page and the history section is misleading.  Even if we copied the text
of the history section onto a subpage of the talk page, we are not preserving
the history section, rather we are making a new section entitled "History"
and putting the real "History" section somewhere else.  If this was actually
allowed the attribution requirements would be very easy to game.  The easiest
solution is to just stick to BJAODNing things that can be page moved to a
subpage of BJAODN.

  
> 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS

> You may combine the Document with other documents released under this
> License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified
> versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the
> Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and
> list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
> license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

...

> In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History"
> in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled
> "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements",
> and any sections Entitled "Dedications".  You must delete all sections
> Entitled "Endorsements".

This section comes into play either by the first entry of a collective
BJAODN page (the funny part + whatever the person who BJAODN'd adds which
ranges from just a section header of ==From [[Page]=== or a little background
from what I remember of the BJAODN) or when someone adds another entry.
Using a template or image would also probably meet the definition of a 
combined Document where we would have to include all of the history sections
of every template and image in one "History" section.  

> 9. TERMINATION

> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except
> as expressly provided for under this License.  Any other attempt to
> copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will
> automatically terminate your rights under this License.  However,
> parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
> License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> parties remain in full compliance.

There is no requirement for notification or a mulligan like the GPL is trying
to do with version 3.  When this is done within Wikipedia it is not clear
who's rights would be rejected, the person that copy/paste moves, the WMF
when someone accesses a page containing a copy/paste move, both?  The only
salvation is that someone else can relicense it to you, so hope someone else
makes an edit to the article that the content was copy/paste moved from. This
clause does throw a serious wrench into fixing BJAODN depending on how you
view it.  Someone who still has rights to the Document must broker a new 
license for those that have lost their rights, which likely includes the WMF.

All of this is only my view of a strict, plausible reading of the GFDL in
regards to a hostile party.  (Again, avoiding the issue of if someone could
or would come after us or if we can "get away with it".)  The GFDL is also 
very much a social contract, where we can bend the rules a little and cut
corners without people getting too upset.  This is not license to say "oh,
it is BJAODN, no one would ever care about that so lets do whatever the fuck
we want!"

So how do we fix it?  

1.  Find people that care about it and are actually willing to work on it. 
    They supposedly exist according to every MFD and whatever, but no one
    ever does it.
2.  Assign them to pages of BJAODN.
3.  Undelete and blank a page when someone is assigned to it.
4.  Have them find the source of an entry they think is funny.
5.  Copy the history of the source page to [[Talk:BJAODN/Source_page_history
     ]], there are scripts to even make it pretty on the transwiki help page.
6.  Restore the entry from the BJAODN page history with an edit summary that
    resonably replaces the history section of the old article.
7.  Hope no one is pissed that we are not following the letter of the GFDL.
8.  Make sure any new entries are either page moved into BJAODN or meet these
    requirements.
9.  Implement better GFDL compliance in MediaWiki.  Specifically, add page
    forking, add princial authors to the Title Page, make sure the History
    section includes information on all images and templates, and add a way
    to include history with merges besides "history merges".

Kotepho 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:GodLove.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GodLove.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki inclusion criteria

Hi David -- just added my comments to the discussion of interwiki inclusion criteria. The page appears to not have had any contributors for a few weeks so wasn't sure how often it's trafficed. As you were one of the frequent posters I thought I'd notify you about my thoughts - the policy as currently envisioned seems a little restrictive and would seem to result in the expulsion of some existing interwiki members. What do you think?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map#Proposed_Wording

Parkerconrad 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Illu96.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Illu96.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags

You've just removed a legitimate spoiler tag from Stargate Atlantis - it is in a cast section, just before it is mentioned that a character dies. If it is ever appropriate to have spoiler tags, that is a place to have one. Worse yet, you've already tried removing the tag once and I put it back and notified you (see [22]). Please be more careful with your definition of "redundant", and at the very least don't edit war with AWB. --Tango 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry! I would have regenerated the list, and included it the second time. The current run is likely my last with a list - David Gerard 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talkpages

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but your script is removing templates from the talk pages of other templates. I'm not sure if this is intentional on your part or not. --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's what I call "oh shite" and "I should go to bed now". Fixing! - David Gerard 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:RiseBrains.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RiseBrains.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stems

[23]. Any luck? —Moondyne 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as yet, I have two boxes of twenty years' photos to go through ;-) I did find a good pic of Kim Salmon! - David Gerard 06:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a flat ass

I'm afraid to inform you that you have a flat ass. :-( --Deskana (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoliler tags

Are you removing them from every article? Wouldn't it be better to let a bot do it? -- Cat chi? 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes

You remove two spoiler tags - but one of those had an endspoiler tag which you left dangling. Are you going to look separately for the dangling endspoiler tags ? -- Beardo 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just failed to spot them first time around :-) - David Gerard 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers?

What is going on with the Spoilers at the moment, I am confused that this is being removed from every single article. Why is this happening? Francisco Tevez 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to every single one. Did you follow the link in the edit summary? Its talk page is useful as well. - David Gerard 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler removal at Memories of Matsuko

You ahve removed the spoiler tag with the following edit summary:

"Removing redundant per Wikipedia:Spoiler - using AWB)"

Sethie has two questions for you:

How does WP:SPOILER apply to keeping a spoiler tag out of this article?

Would you not mark such edits as "minor?" Sethie's understanding is that minor edits are just for spelling, grammer and minor word choice changes.Sethie 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per WP:SPOILER, a section "Synopsis" is likely to contain ... plot elements! 2. I haven't been marking them as minor, should I? - David Gerard 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 Thanks, the policy does say that. Sethie was in error.
2 Well.... ummmmm when Sethie looks here [[24]] he sees a whole lotta m's for minor. Sethie 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's an error on my part. I'll try to remember to keep that unticked - David Gerard 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Need for Speed series characters

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Need for Speed series characters, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --MrStalker talk 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear $TEMPLATE, don't act like a tool. Thanks. Also, you're unlikely to goldfarm your way to the top with templates - $EDITOR, 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear $EDITOR, blow me. --MrStalker talk 06:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

Hi, I may have missed out on some change of policy, but do we always have to carry it to extremes? Why have you removed the spoiler warning from Tomorrow (novel)? Have you read the article? Have you read the novel? Are all spoiler warnings to be wiped out? Best wishes, <KF> 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a heading saying "Plot summary" ... a spoiler warning is utterly redundant with it - David Gerard 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never have guessed you could be so narrow-minded (I do apologize if that word is too strong) as to actually revert my edit and remove the spoiler warning again. So is this "utter redundancy" you are talking about some kind of new insight or what? Were we all, yourself included, completely wrong for five years in adding all those spoiler warnings? Why that zeal all of a sudden?
Judging from your reply, it may well be that you still haven't read the article. All the reviewers comment on the fact that the postponed disclosure of the family secret does not seem authentic but that the suspense created that way is the only reason for the reader to carry on reading. I suppose you are aware of the fact that a plot summary gives the plot in chronological order, so before you know it you learn about the family secret.
Also, you haven't answered my question. Are you eliminating all spoiler warnings? I think I've read on your talk page that there are cases where they are justified.
Once again, best wishes, <KF> 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, when you read a novel the postponed revelation makes sense. But if the reviewers are all commenting on the importance of this postponed revelation, then we should really mention it in the lead. Unless you're going to insist that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it, it doesn't make sense to hide the revelation.
Having said all that, this being a new novel it might make a bit of sense to stick a spoiler tag at the very top for a few months so that the article can be properly developed without upsetting too many people who haven't yet had a chance to read it. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this. Mention what in the lead? That a family secret is revealed in the novel, that it will take the reader 150 pages to learn what it is all about, or that Mike Hook is infertile and his kids are not his kids?
Of course I don't insist "that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it", quite the opposite. But it is exactly because the plot summary should not, and does not, mirror the reading experience that a spoiler warning seems justified.
I don't understand the last bit either. Who shouldn't be upset? Those who want to develop the article but haven't read the book? Those who have just paid ₤14.99 for the novel, just look up Graham Swift, see that there is already an article on Tomorrow and cannot resist clicking on it only to be told without any warning that the kids were test tube babies? I suppose the publishers had a good reason not to mention that on the dust jacket. <KF> 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to protect the readers experience on reading a novel or watching a film or TV episode. But that aside, a section titled "Synopsis" should be expected to contain spoilers. So a warning is unnecessary clutter. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tag reverted

I've restored the spoiler tag you removed from List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion. I believe that article merits the spoiler tag, and I've posted my rationale for that on the article's talk page. Rob T Firefly 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Need for Speed series characters

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Need for Speed series characters, you will be blocked from editing. --MrStalker talk 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR - David Gerard 07:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

What is your deal with removing all of those images on the Bionicle pages? - and other pages, I'd assume. NOTHING is wrong with them. ElectricTurahk 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear to me what the point is of answering here if you didn't read the link in the edit summary, as then you would know what was wrong with them - David Gerard 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler guideline

Have you been reading the discussion at the talk page? --- RockMFR 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AwB

Hi. I see you've been using AWB for removing spoiler templates from the episodes. If you have a look at the episodes of the series Charmed, each episode has a paragraph about the spells used and similar trivia stuff (WP:NOT). Could you use awb to remove that as well? I would do that myself but I don't use awb and manual removing would be too long. Regards. --Tone 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scattergun spoiler removal?

I just popped back to the Firefly (TV series) article where I had added a spoiler warning to the Music section which you then removed on May 19th. I had just seen Serenity and was reading this related article, being careful to avoid obvious areas of key plot exposure. Encountering "Music X plays when character Y dies at the end of episode Z" seems a pretty significant spoiler to me - but it's relevant to the Music section - hence the spoiler warning.

It's clear that you don't like the use of spoiler tags - and I agree that where redundant, they border on moronic - but several comments in your history suggest you occasionally pursue this mission { ;-) } with something less than due care.

Peace. Dugo 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments please

David, I request you opinions on the comments of User:COFS here: Talk:Lee_Baca#Scientology Do you think he as assuming good faith? Do you think he made a personal attack? --Fahrenheit451 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC

Color Graphics Adapter has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. wL<speak·check> 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another unhappy spoiler tag fan

Hi. You removed a spoiler tag from the Noah & Saskia article as redundant. The spoiler occurred in a section titled 'Production', which does not imply a discussion of plot, theme, or story - so I'd argue that it was not redundant. I'm putting the tag back, are you OK with that? Sceptre Seven 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AWB

As a courtesy, I am notifying you that I have requested that your access to AWB be revoked here. I don't care about spoiler tags, but I think this was a clear violation of both the AWB guidelines and the bot policy. --Random832 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SFTVLGUY2

I've had some frustrating dealings with User:SFTVLGUY2 since 2004-- Seems to me to be an enthusiastic dedicated editor, but has been uploading images with incorrect information and tagging and has often refused to correct them when asked multiple times and having relevent policies repeatedly pointed out to him. The editor has reverted copyright challenges and additions of "nosource" to some of his images, including at least one where User:SFTVLGUY2 gave the edit summary "reverted vandalism". I think User:SFTVLGUY2 has been given lots of slack because of his good article edits.

I just noticed this edit at Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG. We are fortunate that the real photographer has been very nice about it and agreed to free licence his photo. User:SFTVLGUY2 removed the comment by the real photographer from his talk page without comment, apology, nor challenge. To me this merits a block for SFTVLGUY2. However I see you edited Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG, so I'm asking you for a second opinion first. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

Hi, David. I sent a post to WikiEN-l yesterday, at about 14:15 British Summer Time. It still hasn't got through. I subscribed to the list a few months ago, but this was my first attempt to post. I know it didn't get lost in cyberspace, because I got an automatic reply saying that it would be moderated. I understand fully that posts have to be moderated, and in fact I think it's a very good idea. I was wondering, though, if there's any way I could move a little quicker to "approved" status, since I'm an administrator here, and I acknowledge that that particular message and all subsequent messages from that email address really do come from me. (The first sentence was "I hope I'm posting the right way; this is my first attempt.") If that's a cheeky request, feel free to snub me, of course. :) Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first message took about twenty-two hours to get through; my second message took about five seconds. If it was you, thank you. If it was someone else, thank you to whoever it was! ElinorD (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags

I think you might find this interesting. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags

Please note that spoiler-season has been redirected to spoiler as a result of a TfD. As part of the close all existing instances of "spoiler-season" have been replaced with "spoiler", so whatlinkshere for spoiler will have about 50 links.

This mostly affects one class of article: Stargate.

Please handle removal of spoiler tags from these articles with special sensitivity. --Tony Sidaway 06:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diyako checkuser logs

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([25], [26], [27]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Motorhead.jpg

I have tagged Image:Motorhead.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. BigrTex 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales added - David Gerard 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová you commented "Don't be silly". Is this a reference to user:Psychonaut's reference to the image BrandNewMontyPythonPapperbok.jpg and User:Kuaichik's response or did you mean that the AFD itself was silly? The Monty Python reference was off topic, but raised a smile from both sides of the debate. The AFD itself was clearly taken seriously by those on both sides of the argument. I'm curious if some policy had been missed or if you simply felt the article deserved to be in Wikipedia. (I have no intention of re-hashing the debate here, I accept it's closed). I'll watch this page for your response, my talk page is too clean to be cluttered up ;) Trugster 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the nomination and reasons for deleting it were fundamentally erroneous and misconceived, as well as not representing either consensus on the AFD or on how Wikipedia does things - David Gerard 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't be silly" is an inappropriate comment in closing an AFD in which 10 editors gave reasons for deleting it and 11 gave reasons for keeping it. The reasons stated for deleting it were not silly. "No consensus" would have been a more accurate summary. I am surprised to see such an incivil comment posted by an administrator. And how do the reasons given for deleting "not represent the consensus on the AFD?" That defies logic. I request that you edit your closing comment to remove the attack on those who, in all seriousness, called for the article to be deleted. Thanks. Edison 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking like it's a numerical vote - David Gerard 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was your impression, then reread it. A significant number of editors gave thoughtful reasons for removing it, and cited relevant Wikipedia policies. Not claiming anywhere that we merely count !votes. I just thought the closure could have avoided inflammatory language, and that the reasons expressed by the 10 or so editors were not in the least silly. I also see no consensus rather than any consensus for Keep, and no consensus would also leave the article there. Edison 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the following rationales for deletion given in the discussion are both thoughtful (i.e., carefully considered as being applicable to the article) and supported by Wikipedia's policies?
  1. The creator of the article is a racist. (Desiphral)
  2. Those who vote to keep the article are racists. (Desiphral)
  3. The mass media is racist. (Desiphral)
  4. Being the subject of multiple independent published works in print and video, in three countries, over the period of five years, doesn't make one notable. (Mantanmoreland, Nabla, Trugster, Kuaichik)
  5. Articles about <ethnic> criminals reinforce negative stereotypes about <ethnic>s. (Eukesh, Desiphral, Valery novoselsky, Kuaichik, RomanyChaj)
  6. The article is an attack page. (RGTraynor, Murderbike)
  7. Neither I nor any of my friends knows about her. (Resolute, Kuaichik, TheMightyQuill)
I can't speak for David, but in my estimation the above rationales, which accounted for much or most of the discussion, are all "silly". You, on the other hand, are to be commended as one of the few "delete" !voters who provided nothing but thoughtful, policy-grounded comments. Most of the concerns raised about WP:BLP were entirely legitimate; there was much agreement that it should be applied (resulting in the article being significantly revised, sourced, and verified) but also some disagreement as to how far it ought to be applied. —Psychonaut 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that I did say essentially what Psychonaut says I said, with one exception. That seventh point ("Neither I nor any of my friends knows about her") rather baffles me. When did anyone say this? I said that most of the sources are ultimately from tabloids (particularly The Sun), not that this woman is somehow just shrouded in mystery. I think we can reasonably expect that the creator of an article knows something about what he is writing about. I never mentioned Psychonaut's friends, either, although I did mention a delete voter who said he did not know about her. --Kuaichik 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I understand now. But please, leave RomanyChaj and Valery novoselsky out of this. Criticize me as much as you wish :) --Kuaichik 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response David. I agree that the concensus was keep, but I think that "Don't be silly" was a poor choice of words. "The nomination and reasons for deleting it were fundamentally erroneous and misconceived" might have been a less abrasive summation? Anyway I'm off seek counselling to help me recover from being called "silly" :) All the best Trugster 10:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the redness of the Margita Bangová link it's all moot now. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going off now to do my audition for The Ministry of Silly Walks. Edison 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler RFA

I have opened a request for arbitration about the spoiler warning issue, in which I've listed you as one of the involved users. Ken Arromdee 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone to keep an eye on

A bit of an edit warrior, I suspect. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, that's sweet! *bats eyelashes* I've never been called any kind of warrior before. This is particularly charming, coming as it does on the talk page of a muckity-muck who used a script to make significant changes to 45,000 pages. This edit warrior labels David a vandal. If you can find evidence of my edit-warrior tendencies that predate the atrocious (and hopefully actionable) overreaching David engaged in, do let me know. --Jere7my 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I sent you an email I don't know if you got it but, I'm having trouble out of a few vandals removing legitimate information and replacing it with unverifiable hearsay from disreputable websites. when they have no experience on the topic. I've run into them before on wiki and my martial arts teacher just won a defamation lawsuit against them. This is a different group but they are using the same tactics. In order to avoid another lawsuit could you please just remove the topic and have it locked. I have given up all hope for martial arts on wikipedia, there are just so many people who feel their way is the only way, and that they have to resort to this kind of crap to hurt their competition. It's very sad because I like wikipedia but, some people don't see the potential it has to be the best, fastest updated, and most inclusive encyclopedia in the world. They just want to use it as an extension of their hate groups "anti-everyoneelse" website. The topic is Konigun Ninjutsu you looked at it a year ago and said then it was an attack piece, I could really use some help. Thank you. David

Spoiler tag medcab case

Hi there. There is an ongoing medcab case, recently opened, re: the spoiler tag and the mass removals of said tags. Your actions are coming under discussion quite a bit, and I don't think it's right that you get discussed entirely in the third person. Please come and join us so that a. you can defend yourself, and b. you can explain exactly what happened, since accounts are getting quite third-hand. -Kieran 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My God. They've got to run out of venues to shop soon - David Gerard 10:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spoiler tag in the article, Sivaji_(film)

Hi David. I had placed a spoiler tag in the article, Sivaji_(film) but you have removed it. The reason I placed the tag was that the article documents the plot of a fairly recently released movie. The movie is still in theatres and the plot documented in the article is fairly elaborate. Let me know what is the appropriate thing to do here. --Irfan 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, didn't realise it was current. I suppose leave it until it's a few weeks into its run - David Gerard 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:OTRS edit

Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with m:OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is here. The edit was to Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spoiler

You might like to check for recent edits to that guideline. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the spoiler tags in your user page. It comes across as derision and ridicule. --Kizor 13:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And contempt. Don't forget contempt. --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. You're very keen on contempt, aren't you? --Kizor 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He eats babies too. Please, do continue to search out things to take offence at - David Gerard 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had figured that you of all people would have weathered this protracted, bitter argument well enough to maintain basic politeness, but I guess not. *Sigh* 'S so depressing. This isn't what any of us came here for. --Kizor 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill: Previous Episode & The Bill: Next Episode

Thanks for your effort adding this, but I had to zap it as a copyright violation - we can't just run press releases! Although an official press release might be usable as a source ... Do our Bill articles usually include a complete article for each episode? I see it's already listed in List of The Bill episodes/23 - 'User:David Gerard|David Gerard 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

List of The Bill episodes/23 is very rarely updated, and I didn't think there would be a problem as the press centre release is published on many forums etc. I had the plan of updating The Bill: Previous Episode and The Bill: Next Episode weekly with the new episode guides, but please accept my apologies for violating wikipedia's copyright policies, I did not realise User talk:Mark bickley 19:50 July 5th '07

Image:Structure-of-scientific-revolutions-3rd-ed-pb.jpg

I have tagged Image:Structure-of-scientific-revolutions-3rd-ed-pb.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article disputes and the press

As someone who deals with Wikipedia in the media, I'd like your opinion. I've recently come across a case where various MPs (or their staff) have been bickering over each other's articles. Is it a good idea to inform the local paper or whoever about this? If a few stories come out making the participants look stupid and petty then it might make them all think twice. On the other hand it might just lead to a load of 'unreliability of Wikipedia' coverage. Any thoughts? Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images for deletion

Saw your comment on Betacommand's page. I'd be grateful if you could hold off the deletions for a day or two. There are standard rationales for some of the standard use-cases being developed by Wikidemo with approval at WT:FAIR, eg logos to start with, and media covers (album covers, CD covers, book covers, DVD covers, film posters) used as main images for articles on those works. I've got a hitlist at User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu_by_tem and I'm intending to do a sweep adding rationales (as appropriate) with AWB this weekend. I'd appreciate if you could give me till then, at least for those use-types. Thx, Jheald 23:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr

I have unblocked Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Conversations were had about limits. Fred Bauder 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an opinion before filing RFCU

David,

For about a month now, we've had problems with a Simpsons vandal. He'll show up once or twice a day, and make changes to multiple Simpsons-relates pages, nearly all of which have to be reverted. He's been warned time and again, but each visit is also from a different British Telecom IP address (presumably via DHCP). An abuse report has been filed, and another user has been logging his activities.

It's getting tiring following this user around every day, undoing the damage. Note that he claims to be an eleven-year-old boy.

He's fairly easy to spot, as he makes the same changes, leaves comments in articles telling people not to change his edits, protects pages, blanks vandalism warnings on his talk pages, etc. (the user log mentioned above makes note of all this).

I'd like to file an RFCU, but would first like to verify a) this qualifies, and b) it will help.

Thanks... -FeralDruid 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment blanking (not you)

Hello David,

I put a comment onto this (admittedly borderline pointful) talk page yesterday, in good faith and with good-ish reason. User:Rambutan blanked it overnight without so much as a "well I don't think so". I reverted it under talk page guidelines - after all, if we can't even talk, what's the page there for? He's reverted it back. A short while ago I reverted it again, began writing him an explanation of why - since I don't appreciate snippy notes by people who don't think IPs should be suffered to live* - and he's reverted it again. With yet another snippy note about how I "could be banned". I'm not saying my reply wasn't snippy, or that it was short, but this sort of thing really puts me, and presumably others, off using any wiki.

Would you please look at the page in question, see if you get the joke I'm seeing there, and if so, revert with a stern face? If you don't, well, it's not important other than in the manner Rambutan has chosen to act, and indeed, although I quite agree the less relevant discussions should be excised, that's always been what archiving is for, at least to my mind. No other users seem to have had a problem with what I wrote, but then, there doesn't seem to have been much time for them to read it.

I probably won't be on this given IP much longer anyway (they rotate every few days on my ISP) so I shall check back here and the talk page in a day or two to see what's what. Thanks for your time, as ever. 172.143.209.80 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The reasons I am still an IP are partly to do with having been a regular contrib on Uncyclopedia before Drama took over, and honestly, I've since found out UK law prohibits almost anybody from insisting I identify myself by any means whilst online. European Convention on Human Rights as adopted into UK law, I believe. I don't want to be a user since it attracts flies, and I don't really benefit from being an IP, despite being the usually helpful kind. It's the gorilla, or as they say in France, c'est la guerre.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HidanBody1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HidanBody1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in yr wikipedia vandalizing yr articles

IS IT CAN BE REVERT PLZ? KTHX. --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Window Snyder

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Window Snyder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author of a standard text? Read the article - David Gerard 07:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC interview

That was very well done. I think you convinced Clive Anderson of Wikipedia's value, and his enthusiasm made Wikipedia seem exciting - to me, and I think to any listener. Λυδαcιτγ 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, David, I just dropped by to note that you carried yourself and represented Wikipedia very well. —David Levy 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice interview. Condolences on having Clive Anderson come knocking on your door though. ;) Brad 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black

Could you have a quiet word with A Man In Black? He's threatening to block me for trimming signature clutter from talk pages. He's usually quite reasonable but I cannot get any sense out of him on this subject. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning RFA

I've submitted the spoiler warning RFA again, with you as an involved party. Ken Arromdee 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I guess we last had contact on 2007-05-10 (see User talk:David Gerard/archive 5#Need user and talk page protection) when I was 68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) … just wanted you to know that I have established The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) as my "registered" username. :-) —72.75.70.207 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misou personally attacks User:Tilman

David, please look at this:[28] --Fahrenheit451 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. He just got a warning from an admin from the note I put on WP:AN/I--Fahrenheit451 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman's pretty thick-skinned :-) But yeah, this sort of thing on Wikipedia does no-one any credit - David Gerard 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

Hi,

I reverted your edit on Watchmen, as I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia's policy of not including Spoiler warnings when revealing the ending. I am presentely trying to take part in the long-winded debate about this policy and it would be simple politeness on wikipedia's part to warn its potential readers. Could you please leave my warning until the debate is resolved ? I wouldn't want to start a war on this. Thanks.Wedineinheck 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to re-revert it, but I see someone else has already. Marking a plot summary with "warning, contains plot elements" is just silly, and that's why that's in the guideline as it stands - David Gerard 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your comment

Do you think that the "warning" user box at the top of this page User:Justanother is a personal attack in the context of this link:[29]--Fahrenheit451 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC request

Hello David. I'm a newbie admin and would be interested in lurking on #wikipedia-en-admins to see how the old hands approach things, but apparently that channel needs authorization/invitation. (Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with IRC and may be using the wrong terminology.) I was told you might know how to arrange that. My IRC name is Raymond_arritt. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks - Raymond Arritt 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no i wasnt

i wasnt trolling i was adding the spoiler tag to warn people of potential spoilers,i didnt want to flick anyone off.67.185.182.69 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to me I ask you to come to the Johann hari page.

A user called Felix-Felix has an obsessive hatred of Hari, has accused him of advocating "the destruction of Untermenschen" etc.

He is now trying to insert as fact a claim from a British magazine notorious for libel called Private Eye. This claim was made the week after Hari criticised Private Eye's editor. It is outrageously libellous. What should be done? David r from meth productions 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan of the (voluminous) discussion pages will show that dave rose and I have been in dispute about this page for over a year of more. It might also be worth noting that dave r is a (self admitted) friend of Hari's and spends his time writing puff pieces and posting pro-Hari comments on blogs. The quality of my edits speak for themselves, I think, and I've made no BLP vios (as far as I'm aware). As far as I'm aware, edits about notable allegations, as long as they are explicitly clear and sourced, are not BLP vios.FelixFelix talk 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of spoiler tags in outsiders character articles

I've read WP:Spoiler and understand that some of the spoiler tags I introduced might be iffy, but for some articles it seems that it applies. For example, in Two-Bit Mathews there is vital plot information given in a section described as "character history". Would you please tell me your rationale for methodically removing the spoiler tags I placed in all the articles? Thank you. --Kooky (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, wouldn't "character history" imply something happening to somebody? A notice that essentially says "Think before you read this, you might learn about something that happens to the person in question" might seem a little overcooked for an article about a fictional person in an encyclopedia, no? I mean, what else of significance is there to write about this fellow except what major role he plays in the plot? Might be okay for a fan website, though. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would. When I read the term I think of something in the way of character description, something that may have been established in the fictional universe before the events in the story take place, but described by the author during the book (for example, the anecdote regarding Two-Bit's switchblade). --Kooky (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you know it isn't just about "something that may have been established in the fictional universe before the events in the story take place," As I say, this is an encyclopedia. We're writing an encyclopedia and that means writing everything of significance about our subjects. Obviously this means that if Harry Potter dies in some significant fictional work you will find this information in the article Harry Potter (character) and so on, and moreover it would be a bit silly to expect us to treat this as an unexpected piece of information in the encyclopedic context. We're writing about the book, not reproducing the experience of reading the book for people who cannot or will not do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kooky, it doesn't actually matter what the WP:SPOILER guideline says; all spoiler tags are deleted as quickly as they're added, by a handful of activist editors. --Jere7my 06:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy 2 RFC

DreamGuy, a name I am told you will remember, has currently become the subject of an RFC. I have, as a completely uninvolved editor, contributed a rather harsh outside view which seems to have really gotten things buzzing. Bishonen, who often defends him, followed up with an outside view of her own in which she accuses you of a bad-faith block of DreamGuy for possible sockpuppetry, referring to [this AN/I]. I looked at it and it really seemed like she was misrepresenting it.

I don't know if you want to become involved in this or not, but it seems to me to be a rather low blow. Daniel Case 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Motorhead

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Motorhead.jpg. Someone templated your page about the fair use stuff. I've added a rationale to the image description page and removed the templated message from this spot - hope that's satisfatory.--Alf melmac 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Buy/proxy block

Could you take a look at this IP and the block? It seems as though it is a corporate IP, not an open proxy. Thanks! Vassyana 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CofS instigated hatchet job in progress

David, I would like to call this to your attention: [30] One cofs directed editor puts up a favorable article for deletion about a group hated by the cofs. Three other pro-cofs editors chime in support.--Fahrenheit451 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonblock request

David, sorry to trouble you with this, but I can't find any hint of where would be a suitable place to ask. Could you please anonblock 213.219.59.96/27, as we've spotted three vandalism-edits now from here, and we'd like to discourage the culprits without having to carry out a witch-hunt. Lunrwolf 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Softblocked - no anon edits and can't create new usernames - David Gerard 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irismeister back?

I'm looking for a sanity check from someone who remembers him but I'm fairly sure Irismester is back as User:Alfort the Keeper of Archives. Take a look and tell me what you think. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may intrude, User:John the Historian appears to be strongly connected to Alfort (see his edits, and then compare with Alfort's). My guess is that all check should apply to both. Dahn 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Irismeister! I missed him! When I asked for references once back in 2004, he told me to read the archives at the Bucium Monastery. bogdan 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another one User:Gladys3000 Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cricket no pic.png

David,

You've just replaced Image:cricket no pic.png with Image:Replace this image1.svg on hundreds of cricketers. I wish you'd read the talk page for Image:cricket no pic.png, or discussed it on WikiProject Cricket first. We had a long trial with both methods, and a long discussion, and advertising for images just led to enormous numbers of copyright violations — people just stole images from all sorts of commercial cricket sites. So we found it very counterproductive to use that and decided to use a blank image instead.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've been adding it to every bio page I can for a while now. Because it has gained us quite a few free images, particularly on living people. It will get copyvios, but so will allowing uploads in general - we deal with them as they come in and keep the good stuff, as per letting anyone edit the encyclopedia. I use it because it's been effective elsewhere in getting us free images - David Gerard 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it looks horrid and looms over what is a fairly neat template for cricket careers that a lot of people have worked on. Please stop, at least until the cricket project has discussed it further. Johnlp 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free content thing (Foundational), not a local project thing. Do a better SVG? - David Gerard 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, that comment was unhelpful and not in the spirit of collaboration. I agree that the new image uglify the articles big-time, and as said above, the issue has been considered in the past and the no-image option was considered the way to go for the cricket project. What other projects do is their business. You really should revert your AWB changes. —Moondyne 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we do need direct request for images, and to filter the copyvios as they come in - because the direct requests do work to get us new free content, i.e. what we're about. However, the present images are indeed horribly ugly. There's discussion on the Village Pump of less hideous placeholder images. The initial proposed replacements would be an immediate improvement, but I'm sure we can do better - David Gerard 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage

Hey, your famous! You also have a few older mentions. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another spammer ;-p - David Gerard 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Proposal:_NEW_Spoiler_Templates

This could get very nasty. Milomedes is involved. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that editors of good will, meeting in a spirit of good faith, can resolve any differences in a decent and proper manner. I've added a comment - David Gerard 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the issue is orthogonal to his concerns. I think the definition of "spoiler" on the wrestling pages needs to be carefully worked out--most of the time I think they're concerned with material that is poorly sourced in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A laudable attitude, and one that often needs pointing out. Thanks for that.
No, this isn't a sign that I'll be participating. I'm still not quite back to normal from last time. --Kizor 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piperdown

I'm reviewing this user's unblock request. Can you please take me through how you came to the conclusion that xe was a meatpuppet for overstock.com? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, and hope you can clarify it for me. Thanks in advance for your help, David. - Philippe | Talk 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering via Wikipedia email - David Gerard 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piperdown

Hi David. Can you point me to the evidence that Piperdown is a sockpuppet of Wordbomb? I can't find any indication that a checkuser was performed, much less confirmed. The sock template on his user page says to check his contribution list for evidence, but his contributions don't seem to add up to a picture of a Wordbomb sockpuppet at all. Where is any of this discussed? Thanks for your time, --G-Dett 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers don't require a request. If you were an admin I'd point you to various deleted pages ... Any admin wanting to know, ask here and I'll tell you via Wikipedia email - David Gerard 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but are you saying you did a checkuser and got a confirm? I know the deleted pages you refer to; I read them before they were deleted. They included substantial material from Wordbomb's very public, very well-known-around-here website, and if I remember correctly they acknowledged this. Was this your evidence that he's a Wordbomb sock?
I'm sorry to be pressing the point, but I've read Piperdown's posts and contributions across a number of pages, and for a range of reasons find it exceedingly unlikely that he is WordBomb. I am also concerned about appearances of propriety and due process when an established editor is banned for sockpuppetry on undisclosed grounds, without any discussion on Community Sanction Board or elsewhere. The effect can be rather intimidating, and it may well send the message that it is simply impossible to raise COI concerns, no matter how well-founded, without risking perma-ban.--G-Dett 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to detail everything here, for trivially obvious reasons. He wasn't blocked for "raising COI concerns." And WP:CSN should have been deleted when it was nominated for deletion - blocks and bans aren't and never have been a voting matter. Admins receiving a plausible unblock request, please leave a note here and I'll email you back via the Wikipedia email function - David Gerard 00:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider emailing it to me, even though I'm not an admin?--G-Dett 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.15.84.2

Hi, since this IP is shared by many people (a look at the contribs shows that), I decided to change the block into a softblock (ACB, of course), and to make it for 3 months only. Your comments are of course appreciated :). -- lucasbfr talk 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked its edit history (IP and logged-in) and mostly saw long-term vandals and trolls I recognised, certainly over the past few months. I'll keep an eye on it though - David Gerard 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a hard block again, because Judd Bagley or a minion was right back again using it. Also, I can see lots of usernames through the IP, but most or all are Bagley/overstock.com. (ps: Fuck off, Bagley.) - David Gerard 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woooops I didn't see you were a Checkuser! I added the {{checkuserblock}} notice on the page. -- lucasbfr talk 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't know that template existed! Most useful :-) - David Gerard 14:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling fans arguing that their project can vote to turn Wikipedia into a pawn of the wrestling companies

I saw some comments from your related to this subject... You may be interested in this. --Gmaxwell 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSN

It's a pity that some people insist on using that page as "votes for banning" - the idea was simply to have somewhere we could debate and record decisions which are obvious to all without the need to burden ArbCom - restricting editing of articles by highly conflicted editors, for example. I don't know how to fix the problem, though. Consensus appears to be that we have the right to issue a topical ban as a community, where it is obvious, but with of course a right to go to ArbCom if the editor feels aggrieved. ArbCom does not scale well and is IMO poorly suited to obvious and simple cases. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:213.219.59.99

Could you take a look at the unblock request on the talk page linked above? The user claims to be suffering from a block placed by you at the request of the sysadmin. S/he also claims to be the sysadmin and that no such request was made. Your input would be appreciated, especially since the block log is empty. Range block? - auburnpilot talk 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Johann hari page

Hi david. Despite you clearly saying Private Eye's front section shouldn't be used as a source, Felix-Felix is still asserting that it is right to ignore this and include the libellous allegations against Hari, as you;ll see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Hari&action=edit&section=42

He is insisting on his right to use BLP violations. Isn't it time to ban him from editing this page, when he is obviously full of hatred for its subject? 81.129.156.202 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, David Gerard. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Blazecat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blazecat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Querulous?

The editor in question (Jenny at Penguin) was creating and/or editing a fistful of articles about her employer's authors and books, in a blatant display of COI (but seemingly more naivete than ill will). The notability tag was pulled; but I don't think the COI tag was even remotely querulous. --Orange Mike 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the tag itself. It's not something that's helpful to a reader, it's something only of use to someone who's deep in Wikipedia - David Gerard 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given Wikipedia's perennial problems with COI, I don't really agree. Perhaps we should discuss it on that template's talk page? --Orange Mike 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Abbas

Don'understand. You appear to have added an image to a stub that just made it look worse. Was this a mistake ? Victuallers 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living bio, no image, added the "if you have a free-content image please add it" image. I appreciate the image is probably uglier than it needs to be - see Village Pump discussions linked above. Requesting an image this way does actually work to get us images, so I've readded it - David Gerard 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Abart

Honestly ... do you think this article is improved by this image. Ask someone else pleae. Some of the articles you have done look OK but wasn't it obvious there was a picyute missing. There is a very nice template that makes the same message that appears on the talk page. PLEASE discuss Victuallers 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length in many places. Free encyclopedia means free content means asking for free content that's obviously missing - David Gerard 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, most of your changes look OK but the one you recently reset looks very poor. I understand the policy but adding misaligned images and ones that hang needlessly at the bottom of articles looks poor and I find it difficult to believe that that is what the policymakers had in mind. I did look at Aaron Abeyta which you recently did and it looks great. Surely you can rethink? I would be interested in seeing where it was agreed to add this image to every imageless article. Victuallers 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Shimon Adaf

I'm too lazy to do this, but there is a free image on the Hebrew Wikipedia. You could download it from there and upload it back here: Image:Shimonadaf(not that it's a great picture of him, kinda goofy-looking). --woggly 09:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Cool, thank you :-) - David Gerard 09:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free images

Is it really important placing that non-free picture in every single biograghy that doesn't have a photo on it? The sunder king 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on experience, I think it will net us more than a few good free content images. So I'd say it's definitely worth the effort. Also, I'm working from home this week and it's really easy to edit with AWB with one hand while entertaining a small child :-) - David Gerard 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorenSearchBot

Hey there. I put up some semi-stats on my talk page in answer to your query. — Coren (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sayidlost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sayidlost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for X Window System

X Window System has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthphonia Suprema

I marked it A7 because it had no indication of whether they were a signed band, whether they had any sort of press coverage. If the mentions of links to other notable musicians disqualify it from CSD, I'll bear that in mind in future.

Also, it turns out the text of the article is a copyvio of the biography section here. Would that be legitimate grounds for a speedy, or would it be better to reduce it to a non-violating stub and let the article be judged on the notability of the band? Thomjakobsen 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try AFD if there's any question as to the speedy suitability. (Anything there that was clearly a speedy tends to get zapped anyway.) You don't have to speedy everything, and A7 is the shakiest ground for a speedy - David Gerard 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Simon Caney

I've added some additional info to the article. Yes, I know that Professors in England are granted the title after meeting high achievement levels and criteria. I'm unclear whether it is always a higher standard than elsewhere.

Regarding levels of Speedy on Wikipedia: the articles you referenced on my talk page are interesting but I find them less than persuasive. With the growing visibility of and dependence on Wikipedia, I remain critical of allowing questionable articles to remain. Do some need time to be refined and filled out? Yes. But by the same token, increased visibility means more people are taking advantage of WP to create articles which don't meet basic notability criteria. Should article subjects be investigated before putting them up for Speedy/A7? Yep. But they aren't always because there is little in the information in the initial article to suggest notability. Giving all initial stubs without any supporting documentation the benefit of the doubt is less than ideal in my opinion. I realize this is an elitist attitude vis-a-vis the encyclopedia anyone can edit but, to paraphrase Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I an editor too?"

By your standards, an Oxford professor is automatically notable. I tend to resist the notion that certain positions or membership in a group confers automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps I am part of the problem posited by the critical articles you cited: too eager to limit the scope of the project, to be conservative in judgment of inclusion. My concern is that Wikipedia not become a mere collection of information. (I won't insult you by linking to a policy with which you undoubtedly are more familiar than I.)

Of course all this is beside the fact that Simon Caney is probably notable and I should have looked a little further before tagging it. More interesting to me is finding that Magdelen College doesn't have an article which it very obviously deserves.

I've certainly made a number of mistakes in tagging articles with A7, particularly in the last week. I've already begun pulling back from such overzealousness but I felt like giving you a thoughtful response on the subject because... well, because I felt like it. I don't do it expecting persuade you from your perspective. I think of Wikipedia as a collective project which works best when people share their views and visions of the project. So I clutter up your talk page with stuff probably better suited for actual group discussion. I can be a little ill-focussed sometimes. Cheers, Pigman 18:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) CSD A7 is really problematic because it's got a lot of subjectivity to it and a proper AFD nom is a pain in the backside and so forth. But it's used very subjectively and so I started looking at the actual levels of it. I must note quite a lot of the stuff so tagged deserves the quickest death we can manage, so my cheers and admiration to the valiant dredgers through the sewage firehose of Special:Newpages - David Gerard 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly wanted to express that I share your concern with a WP "culture of deletion" and assure you I'm striving to develop a balanced approach and attitude about noms, speedy and AFD. Additionally, I'm feeling particularly moronic for having said that Magdelen College, Oxford doesn't have an article, not noticing the misspelling of Magdalen College. It's at times like this I'm glad plenty of other people check over my work on WP. ;-) Pigman 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution on edit summaries

Re: the "clearly erroneous" A7. Inclusionists and deletionists should be able to work together on Wikipedia. There will be differences of opinion but that doesn't mean one editor's opinion trumps another's opinion. Your history indicates a tendency to remove speedy delete tags. In my opinion, if you feel a tag is unjustified, you should do something to improve the article, if you truly believe it is salvageable. In any event, you should use edit summaries with neutral language. Edit summaries with comments like:

  • bogus a7, notability blatantly asserted
  • bogus speedy
  • clearly erroneous A7

are your personal assessments, and could be seen as attempts to discourage other editors from continuing their efforts to clean up Wikipedia. Please consider neutrality to be a worthwhile factor in edit summaries. Thanks. --- Taroaldo 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not bright line it's not a CSD, full stop. Your talk of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" merely muddies a bright-line criterion. You do realise I personally deleted about half the stuff so tagged I saw? - David Gerard 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Gifford-pinchot.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gifford-pinchot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you can't find the correct info to prove this one is PD, there are numerous replacements available from the Library of Congress' photo site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from a PA state site, so presumed US PD. But yeah, there's gotta be a federal PD image of him. Not worried about this particular image, it's only illustrative, but I can't imagine there being no federal images of Pinchot - David Gerard 09:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYIFV

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article FYIFV, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no gold here. I'm sure there's plenty more to be farmed, though - David Gerard 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grothendieck image

Hey, I noticed that you put a "no free image" tag on Alexander Grothendieck today. While, strictly speaking, this is true, the image that is there has been provided a fair-use rationale and it is not thought that free images exist at all, or can be created. There was a discussion about this at WikiProject Mathematics in June or so; did you follow it? This point has been agonized over already and putting the tag there doesn't seem like it will result in the improvement you desire; we looked, and nothing is out there. Do you think that the rationale is invalid, or would you simply prefer the image to be free? Ryan Reich 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the discussion was at Talk:Alexander Grothendieck/Archive1#Photos. Ryan Reich 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, a wikiproject can't override Foundation policy. See WP:NONFREE - David Gerard 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our EDP takes into account situations "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" this would appear to be one of those situations. Generaly the placeholder should only be used where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be posible to get a free image.Geni 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was saying. I was saying that we had a discussion over what to do with this image, which concerned whether or not a fair-use policy was justifiable. We decided it was. The link you provide was our guide in the discussion, which makes me think you haven't read that discussion at all. All the fair use criteria are addressed, so we have followed "Foundation policy". Where were you when we did this, and what makes you think you know better? Ryan Reich 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, sorry - yes, if he's damn hard to get hold of then of course that's different - David Gerard 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. Like I said, this was a troublesome issue for us for some weeks. I'd remove the tag but it's already been done...Ryan Reich 16:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casually referred to as the J. D. Salinger exception;-) - David Gerard 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFAr/RFC

I have nominated WP:RFAr/RFC (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFAr/RFC|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 16:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no free image tagging

Hello, thank you for your contributions.

I noticed you did a widespread copy and paste job on many articles requesting free images. This appears to be destructive to many articles, especially short articles. The image you added requesting free images often pushes much more relevant information down the page or messes up the article layout.

Please revert or fix many of these additions to place the request for free image below other infoboxes. I may take to RFC seeking comment if ignored.

This would not have triggered a response if the requests for free images were carefully added to the articles in a non-intrusive manner.

-- Guroadrunner 08:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They produce free content contributions of pictures, which is this thing called the "mission of the foundation." You are welcome to try to vote out the Foundation mission in an RFC if you feel that's productive - David Gerard 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there's active work going on to secure good free images as replacements, thus improving our content for everyone - see this article today by Durova for an example of outreach to publicists - David Gerard 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has a point actually. Although of course we want free content for everything, slabbing that on every article can be an eyesore. Are you planning to add this to everything or are there guidelines in place for which article do and don't have them? Wizardman 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Closest would be Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation. I personaly would limit it to articles where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be posible to get a free image but other than that I see no reason to limit its deployment.Geni 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been sticking to living people - we have almost no excuse for anything other than a free image when it comes to living people (see above the J. D. Salinger exception, for noted recluses). Basically, the main problem is that they make Wikipedia look like a work in progress ... which it is. They're as appalling as {{unreferenced}} or {{stub}}, and for the same reasons. The placeholder images themselves are probably just a bit too jarringly ugly, and I will be having a hack at this aspect sooner rather than later - David Gerard 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get to the point: I agree, and am in accordance with you, that seeking free images is important, and spurring the searches is a good idea with the "free image please" image. However, what you did was slap it on the top of Wikipedia articles without integrating into the infoboxes. Not cool. Please look into each and fix these or give a proper rationale why you chose to do a haphazard job on those, lest they be vandalism.
I also agree with Geni's assessment. A lot of the additions are for "private-public" figures: They have a publicly visible role, but that does not mean they are a public figure whose image should be put up. -- Guroadrunner 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand the term "vandalism", and you don't appear to understand what Geni said either - David Gerard 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your response to "what you did was slap it on the top of Wikipedia articles without integrating into the infoboxes. Not cool. "  ?? -- Guroadrunner 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not ideal, I'll be trying to take more care with these - David Gerard 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, go ahead - my complaint with the last recolouring was that the colours were quite frightening (bright purple, if I recall correctly - thoroughly undesirable) and that it was just done on one person's steam (you know much better than I do that these images can rub people the wrong way, and making a big change without half the community's written consent will always raise a massive fuss). I should probably check out that village pump discussion; I was wondering how hard it would be to have new fromowner images for politicians, for actors, for authors and so on, without people yelling about over-compartmentalisation? Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the new one was actually more garish than the old one. Dunno that compartmentalising them would be useful except when the actual placeholder image is different (and the -male and -female variants are much better than the old -1 variant, or the quite singular Image:Freeimage3.jpg ... I'll tweak the colours on this one (a soft blue and a soft grey, low contrast, a nice sans-serif font) and see if they make people choke less - David Gerard 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just replaced Image:Replace this image male.svg - see here. Let's see what happens - David Gerard 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protoscience

Hello -- I just discovered that nobody ever notified you that Category:Protoscience, which you created back in 2004, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be very much welcomed. The discussion is now in its fifth day, so it may close in the next day or so (I may ask for it to be relisted because there have been very few comments thus far). Cgingold 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spoiler

You may find recent events of interest. [31] [32]. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I am all out of monkey dung to fling - David Gerard 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:SA-mastereditor

I've put this bit of silliness up for deletion. Could I get your opinion on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest. Comment. Evar. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act

Figured you might be interested, but I've totally rewritten that article. Took me two years (no kidding). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one?

I saw you blocking and reverting Learntruck55 as a sock, and based on a specific common purpose (The creation of a seperate Terri Schiavo‎ medical article and then removing the content from the Terri Schiavo‎ page) do you think user:Blindedservant is a sock as well? I'm not sure. Thanks! Gscshoyru 22:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Well spotted! And a pile of what look like sleeper accounts too ... - David Gerard 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard

Hi David, I have noticed that you have sometimes mentionned about a famous painter called David Gerard. Yet I don't quite think there is an article on this guy, (under that name). If he doesn't have an article do you think he's notable enough to have one? The sunder king 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The painter is Gerard David :-) It's possible I would barely rate an article, but I've evaded it so far. Thankfully none of the references are on the web - David Gerard 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png

You originally uploaded this image, but nowadays I have seen that it is more customary for images to have "Detailed Fair Use Rationale" sections, in addition to the brief descriptive "Summary" section and license tag. Since you were the original uploader and know more about this particular image and its origins than I, I thought it best to allow you to add a Fair Use Rationale section to the image's page. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I formatted it a bit, hope that's alright. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you :-) That image is my favourite example of why fair use is a good thing for the encyclopedia, even if it's grievously overused by many ... - David Gerard 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, indeed. But also why it is a good thing that fair use is allowed, in general, legally, ahem, cough cough. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

India Arie pic

This IS NOT India Arie. The owner of that photostream was probably just calling/labelling the pic that bc whoever/whomever that youg lady is is dark, had her hair covered, played the guitar. I guess even admins make mistakes huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.99.177 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bother! - David Gerard 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment requested on WP:BAN changes

Your comments would be appreciated here at WP:BAN policy discussion. I am inviting you to look this over because I don't participate at the admin IRC channel (due to lack of time) and would appreciate perspective from the regulars there. - Jehochman Talk 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clairebabylost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Clairebabylost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Charlielost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlielost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Desmondlost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Desmondlost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blazecat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blazecat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larger thumbnail

The trouble with this is that it makes it smaller for people like me who default to 300px thumbnails. There is no real solution. Publicola 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

Check this unblock pls: User talk:Ildmur. He only had one edit when you blocked him and you said he was a sock. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment

Thanks for the comment on my discussion page. It was a lot of fun to get the photos of Zap Mama for their article. Reservoirhill 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X Window System

""citation needed" right next to the actual reference?" The given reference does not provide an independent assessment of the "de facto" standard wording. In terms of factual quality, it's just another Mark Anthony speech. Tedickey 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly ... it's an "everybody knows" (it sure wasn't happening elsewhere) ... but of course that's not backing. If you're this T.E. Dickey, you'd probably be someone with the paperwork to hand that could actually back it up ;-) - David Gerard 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so - but private copies of email aren't as authentic as online references. I could (may) build up a case to support the cite. Tedickey 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if there's paper anywhere, that's even better than online references - the early history (up to XFree86) in X Window System came straight out of the intro to the book in the references ;-) - David Gerard 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect of Ozymandias (starship)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ozymandias (starship), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ozymandias (starship) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ozymandias (starship), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews comments

Thanks for your edits on this, I think it looks much better with the bolded "Don't be a jerk" - suitably blunt and attention grabbing that it is at least the one thing people will pick up if they don't read the full page. --Brianmc 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lockelost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lockelost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Michaellost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Michaellost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI threads regarding blocks of Dr. Fluffy

Just wanted to let you know that your blocks of User:Doctorfluffy and User:AndalusianNaugahyde are being challenged at WP:ANI#User:Doctorfluffy and WP:ANI#User:AndalusianNaugahyde, by user:Gavin.collins. There's also a peripherally related discussion on User:Pilotbob at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. I'm sure that your input would be helpful in resolving these discussions. -Chunky Rice 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes added to ANI - David Gerard 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [33] and the next diff where I revert myself... I've a mind to grant this request just to see what happens, and undertake to keep an eye on he/she/them. But I don't unblock without checking with the blocker and/or getting consensus so... your call, what do you think? Yes, I know they're likely actually socks and playing me to the hilt. But maybe this one time my mentorship will work. (and maybe, maybe, the horse will sing!) You can reply here, I watch. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And never mind the implausible assertions those were IBM IPs ... *sigh* if you really feel like it :-) - David Gerard 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a peanut gallery here, we're dealing with obvious socks that clearly know the ropes enough to have a well-phrased philosophy. I don't think lack of clue is the issue here - I honestly have a very hard time maintaining an assumption of good faith here. It looks to me very much like deliberate disruption of the encyclopedia by trying to start and maintain contentious AfDs. Given that, for instance, Doctorfluffy has no recent content edits to the mainspace, what is gained by unblocking? Phil Sandifer 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David: I don't feel "like it", it's more like I feel I ought to... "sigh" indeed. I'm going to take your reply as agreement to lift. Phil: what is the gain? Very little, other than to waste my time monitoring the situation. (some may think that's a net gain to the encyclopedia project, but I digress... :) ). But I also see this as setting precedent for coming down harder next time although the ruleslawyers will argue that every situation is different, I am thinking of turning my response to the Dr. into an essay on the topic of why we don't have the need (based on cost benefit analysis) to be perfect in our admin actions... ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

giveit banner

Following discussion at ANI, would you please restore Image:Giveit.png so that it may be listed at WP:IFD instead, to seek consensus? ··coelacan 09:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted on behalf of the Communications Committee because it was representing the foundation in an extremely offensive light. This is a no-brainer here. You have an image that links to a foundation page (not an article), uses the words "we and us", with the message "give us your fucking money." Absolutely unacceptable for the foundation's fundraising efforts. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I suspect the appropriate guideline here would start with words such as "What on earth." - David Gerard 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note about COMCOM in the deletion summary may have helped make sense of why someone who had not otherwise participated in the ANI discussion suddenly deleted the banner. I retract the request. ··coelacan 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I should have been clearer - David Gerard 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DG

It's blatantly obvious that you're more than a little busy, but I thought I should pop a note here to say that I've sent you an email, suggesting a discussion about recent stuff. Take care, Privatemusings (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings arbitration request

Privatemusings has been unblocked by the current blocking administrator for the limited purpose of allowing him to file a request for arbitration. You are mentioned in his statement, although not currently named as a party to the case. You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Privatemusings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For commenting at my talk page. DurovaCharge! 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is being taken in vain

Thought you might like to know. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw. I'm sure matters raised there will be duly considered by the appropriate people - David Gerard 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from your page

"Expertise and deletion: If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikipedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "keep" within your field of expertise, and will undelete any articles within your field that you say are notable. I'll even help copyedit them to make it clearer why they should stay."

Please take a look at the AfD for [34] and see if it meets the above. You know my expertise. You are more than welcome to copyedit the article if you want. Much thanks for many things, Keith Henson Keith Henson 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC) hkhenson@rogers.com[reply]

I'll have a look and see what I can do for it - David Gerard 10:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can I would appreciate a the article, history and talk pages being moved under my user name for a short time. Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now userfied at User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding - one day when I have a second to scratch myself (editorial work on Wikipedia articles? teh h0rr0r!) I'll dive in - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make the talk page viewable as well? There is a reference there I could use. Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_tn.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Logo_tn.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jusjih 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/howto

Yes, it's spoilers again. --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emails you made on the WikiEN-l mailing list in May 2007

On May 15, 2007, you wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list asking other users to go a URL and "get hacking."[35] On May 16, 2007, you wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list and said "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long."[36] Do you think that's an acceptable alternative to the TFD process? You also wrote an email and said "Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case?"[37] (where it appears under a "Plot summary" heading). You also wrote "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?"[38]. On May 19, 2007, you wrote an email and said "I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads."[39] On May 19, 2007, you wrote "Where is the evidence our readers even care?"[40]. On May 20, 2007, you wrote "I did go looking for complaints. Just a quick search on blogsearch.google.com for "Wikipedia spoiler"." Do you think it would perhaps have been better to ask actual Wikipedia readers and editors on Wikipedia itself? Steve Bennett asked "Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war?" and on May 31, 2007 you wrote "Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}."[41]

Did you remove the {{spoiler}} template from 10 to 20,000 articles? Had there been a TFD that resulted with a consensus to delete the template?

Do you think the Wikipedia community should be able to trust administrators? Do you think the Wikipedia community should be able to trust former arbitrators? Do you think when someone is given checkuser and oversight abilities, they are put into a special position of trust? --Pixelface (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shannonlost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Shannonlost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 24.13.159.39

You've blocked the above address with the summary {{blocked proxy}}. I know very little about proxy addresses, and I'm not finding anything indicating it is one. There is an unblock request on the IP talk page, and I'd appreciate your comment. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the IP as it doesn't seem to be an open proxy. Dmcdevit agrees with these findings, but feel free to reblock, given sufficient evidence. Thanks. --DarkFalls talk 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was the particular open proxy canary's actual address then - David Gerard 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Libby Hoeller

You deleted this page on 22 May, giving as the reason "A7 per prod"; however I note that the article had previously been deleted and restored with "110 revisions" so consider it unlikely that only one editor had contributed substantially to it. Previous AFDs failed to reach a consensus, so I doubt that there is now consensus for this page to have been deleted; hence I would like you to consider restoring it. JulesH (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, it was a gross failure of WP:BLP. If you think there's enough high-quality sources to demonstrate her fame ... - David Gerard 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a misspelling I can't edit

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ says " Note:The archive search index was last rebuilt at Wednesday, 19 Sep 2007 12:56:31 UTC. Any postings after that will not be found by a search. Index rebuild is usally done once every 24 hours for this list. You can use a "View by date" link below to access more recent postings."

"usually" is the correct spelling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit it either. Sounds like one for wikitech-l - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge it to /dev/null myself, but I'll have a look - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikien-l issue

I joined the above list yesterday and sent a couple emails to the list. I know the list is moderated for new users so I was wondering how long before my messages appear. Also, I am an admin on enwiki, if that helps speed along the process of becoming a "legitimate" user.↔NMajdan•talk 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That means no-one has looked at the queue today. I'll go check it now! Basically we start everyone moderated because it's proven necessary to keep the trolls at bay. Which is a pain in the backside, and we apologise for the delay - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I completely understand the need for starting everybody as moderated. I was just curious how often the moderated posts were checked since its been over 24 hours since my first post. Thanks for the prompt response.↔NMajdan•talk 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice

Hello, David Gerard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Using a mailing list to delete a template. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your template is the height of comedy, particularly as the discussion led directly to a discussion of banning you for querulousness. I suggest that if you are really this bad at getting consensus to swing your way, you quit sitting muttering "we wuz robbed" and go write an article - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the {{ANI-notice}} template mentioned at the top of WP:ANI. And it was Phil Sandifer, the admin who wrote "Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies."[42] who suggested I be blocked. I really don't care what Phil Sandifer thinks. I've run into him plenty of times at WP:SPOILER. I also don't care what TheFarix thinks. I've run into him plenty of times at Million Dollar Baby, one of those articles you refer to. I don't care what Tony Sidaway thinks. I've run into him plenty of times at Eastern Promises, one of those articles you refer to. And I don't care what ChazBeckett or AniMate think, they appear to me to have shown up at WP:ANI after arguing to delete 2 templates I created. I suppose I should start my own little mailing list to get people to do what I want for me on Wikipedia, since I'm so "bad at getting consensus to swing my way." May I suggest you make proposals to change a guideline on Wikipedia before you tell mailing list subscribers "Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?"[43]? --Pixelface (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I respectfully suggest that when the list of people who disagree with you and the list of people where you "really don't care" what they think corresponds as perfectly as they do for you, you may be getting a touch megalomaniacal in your reasoning? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed a bit

See this. --16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - but with this full bag! -- Cat chi? 17:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Merry Christmas

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese MP4 merger

Hi, sorry to take some time from your busy schedule meeting Jimbo and all that, but even though I quite understand your intentions to merge the Chinese MP4 player article, I cannot stress enough to remind you that S1 MP3 Player is the name given to a variety of similarly-looking players. Those players include the Chinese MP4 players, but players from Coby or Nextar aren't really MP4 players, no? Besides, all builds of the S1 MP3 Players are audio-only. Chinese MP4 players, on the other hand, covers players from that region that has low-level video formats, advertised as something they're not, and the majority are percieved as clones. In general, the S1 MP3 Players are one circle of the Venn diagram, while the Chinese MP4 players are another. Only those S1 players which are from China would be in the middle, eclipsed by both circles, but that's it. Merging two weakly related articles to get rid of an nearly-irreparable one isn't that good of an excuse. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|19-12-4 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to unmerge if you want. Possibly frustration from dealing with my own alleged "MP4" player that isn't. (See additions to AMV video format.) The Chinese MP4 player article was a near-unsalvageable mess, though. (NPOV? References? What are those?) - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have editing rights on Citizendium...

You might want to edit BSD Daemon to correct the claim that the Beastie wields a Triton (mythology), since Triton is the name of the god, and the thing that Triton wields is properly called a trident. Which furthermore is *not* the same as a pitchfork (nor for that matter a spading fork). The original one drawn by Phil Foglio does infact wield a pitchfork, and only later more stylized ones sport the trident. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture-Bonding again

I know from reading you talk page your plate is more than full, but if you get a chance, could you reactivate the talk page for this page that you userfied for me? If not, I could take it by email. There is some material there that never got transfered to the article page. Thanks! Keith Henson (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikBack

If that's not you, kick up a fuss. I'm doing these by hand but if registrations keep up at this rate, I'm going to need a bot .... The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm David Gerard on there :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to talking

Hi. I'm trying to facilitate a laid back, on-wiki discussion about Wikipedia and IRC and would appreciate your particpation. Thanks. Regards, El_C 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharitable assessment

I find this to be an uncharitable assessment of "bad faith"; but perhaps better expressed as: you mistake the reason why we both think that "tens of thousands of articles by bot purely to raise Volapuk's listing on the front page" is a bad idea. Change "Volapuk" to "Hebrew" to see what I mean. I think we both think Volapuk should not have a wikipedia in the first place. In particular, I think if a constructed language can have an accurate translation bot (and why not, it is constructed); then the bot should be provided by WikiMedia and not any language specific content. But when someone is enthusiastic about something whether it is Volapuk or butterflies, then their trying to increase the number of articles in what they are enthusiastic about is not "bad faith" but the very heart of what makes this place tick. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was he trying to make a Wikipedia useful to anyone? No, he was promoting his favourite conlang. There's a difference between Volapuk and any other tiny language's Wikipedia, and that difference is precisely his actions in bad faith. He ADMITTED HIS REASONS IN DETAIL - I'm not assuming any bad faith that wasn't in his words. The question now is how to clean up the mess - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand what you are saying. But I failed to communicate. Sorry about that. I will try to be more clear. He did not say "I am acting in bad faith." You claim that. I assume he is trying to promote Volapuk and said so clearly. I assume that based on what you said. My point is that if you see someone increasing the number of Hebrew articles because they are trying to promote Hebrew; then in that case I do not believe you would wish to delete their articles and claim "bad faith" merely because of their motive. The difference is that Hebrew is a useful language to have a wikipedia in and Volapuk is not a useful language to have a wikipedia in. Even if he wrote all of the articles with a toothpick in his dick. How hard or easy it was for him makes no difference. It is beside the point. You say Was he trying to make a Wikipedia useful to anyone? The answer is no because no article in a constructed language that only 10 people care about is useful. The answer is not no because of the ease of the article creation or whether or not additional work is needed to improve those articles. You say "The question now is how to clean up the mess." The solution is to try and try and try again to delete Wikipedias in constructed languages that only 10 people care about (if that's true; again, I am going on the assertions of others). - WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]