Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.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.
I would have added the info for the 1990, 1991 & 1992 awards but I haven't found a complete listing of who won which award - if you have any info on more than just who won the golden WAMi in 1991 ;) then let me know.Dan arndt (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best place to ask would be WAM. Ask for press clippings, they'll have 'em. (I left my archive in Perth and it's jussssst dusssssst ... unless there's a paper or two in a box on a shelf in the front room.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA, and the pithy "not insane" comment. ;) The RfA was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please advise whether you anticipate posting any statement or evidence in the IRC arbitration case soon? As you may have seen, I am abstaining from voting on any findings regarding you pending an opportunity to review your comments, but cannot continue to do so indefinitely. Thanks for your anticipated response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed. Public note here. I have a new appreciation of the difficulty people brought before the AC have in fitting writing up a good statement between real life - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. I'm not sure if you noticed my mention of an edit summary of yours on the talk page of the proposed decision, but do you have time to discuss the edit summary you made here back in June last year? "reverting page to a version that doesn't suck, as 0wnz0r of this here project page." I realise that sarcasm doesn't come across well in printed media, so I wanted to ask if you were being sarcastic here or serious about owning the page (I think that leetspeak is sometimes used like this in a sarcastic manner)? I was thinking of noting this on the evidence page, but wanted to ask you about it first. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Thanks. This raises two further questions in my mind: (1) Would you be happy for the page to be in the Help: namespace? (2) Why rely on people to read edit summaries instead of making the "owner" point clear on the page itself? I appreciate you may be busy, and have already e-mailed the arbcom, but I'm hoping something useful comes out of all this. Possibly the arbcom decision will address such points, but possibly they won't. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created to avoid ambiguity and complaints from the very people who trolled it leading to this case, so I can't say I care where it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. I can't say I agree about calling it trolling. I accept Bishonen's statement that it was a genuine emotional response from Giano and Geogre, followed by FUBAR on all sides. But thanks for taking the time to talk. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent edit to Stephen Fry. The placeholder image was originally in use in the infobox, but a consensus was reached that it should not be used. Have a look at the discussion on the talk page for details. For what it's worth, I think the article looks better WITH the placeholder, but we have to bow to consensus when it is reached! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk12:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "three no, one yes" straw poll is now binding consensus? You know, I was joking when I said "'Consensus' means a 7:3 vote on an obscure talk page" - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole placeholder image thing is a bit over the top. I have never seen a situation where these result in an image being uploaded, and they are unsightly. In my opinion, your resources could be spent on more meaningful contributions to the project instead of flooding it with unnecessary images. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrariwise, I have seen many when they have resulted in a new free image being uploaded. I wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. In the case of Fry, I'm now looking around for a suitable freely-licensed image ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried contacting the person yourself? More often than not they are more than willing to do so and it saves us from being subjected to this crap. I think the absence of any image at all is more than enough to tell people that an image is needed. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong. They do make Wikipedia look unfinished, but that would be because it is. (At least it's better than the previous version of the placeholder.) We are in fact working on precisely that: pointing out that if you want an image that's not horrible, then properly releasing a good promo under a proper free licence will get you and us what we want. See the newly-added Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. Once that mechanism's working smoothly, we'll be doing some active promotion of this channel. We've actually put some thought into this matter. In the meantime, placeholder images do in fact gain us photos we wouldn't have otherwise, so are (except in the case of current teen idols, where they attract nothing but copyvios) in fact better than no image - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Stephen Fry article has been plagued with copyvios for a while now, which is why I put the placeholder there in the first place. We've had everything from Blackadder screenshots to QI DVD covers, with no reasonable images we can use at all. Just as an aside - I prefer articles to have the placeholder, I'm just going along with what the majority appear to want! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please uncheck whatever AWB option converts <references /> to {{reflist}}.[1] Per {{reflist}}, "there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references". Gimmetrow04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday, 12 January 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I'm unlikely to make it this time. Mind you, what we need to do is set one up at the Pembury. Not in the city, but certainly enough Wikipedians as regulars ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David.
As you know, it's turned out that London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 (April 13th) is going to be in Holborn again. Boring I know. The Pembury is undoubtedly a nicer pub, but it seemed like we were unlikely to get enough interest unless we make it very easy to get to. At least we're not arranging it at Montagu Pyke :-)
Hope you decide to come along anyway ...and get the other usual suspects along too!
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to the knol article. You went through the article and capitalized the word "knol" whenever it was a proper noun. We had a discussion about capitalization of the term in the talk page. I'm not going to undo your changes but please, read the discussion and I leave it to you to undo your changes or keep them and explain in the talk page. Thanks! DuckeJ (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Solaris8-cde.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.
Can you please be more polite? Can you please stick to commenting on whether or not coverage in secondary sources seems to show notability in these topics, as opposed to commenting personally on me? Please? Cirt (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to put it than "you are woefully ignorant of the subject area you are mass-nominating for deletion", because you are. I'm sure you don't like hearing it, and I have no question of you doing this in good faith - but that doesn't mean you have good judgement, as I fear you are conclusively demonstrating you do not. Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on commenting on me personally in every single AfD? Why can't we have a discussion based on the notability of the articles? Please, David Gerard, I would have expected more from you, this is really not appreciated. Please. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Er ... that would be because you are the person who is in fact doing the mass-nominating. As such, your subject area ignorance is in fact directly relevant. The obvious solution is not to mass-nominate articles for deletion in an area you are clearly ignorant of. "Notability" is a guideline at best, and one which is hotly questioned because of its overuse by the sincere but ignorant in mass nomination of articles in subject areas they have no knowledge of. The "reliable sourcing" guidelines are guidelines at best also, and need a lot of work per subject area. You do realise that for Scientology there are plenty of cases where Usenet articles are suitable sources, because that's where the history of Scientology 1995-2000 actually happened? You didn't know that? This is what I mean when I speak of the hazards of mass nomination in a subject area you are ignorant of - you can end up looking exceedingly foolish, and can expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have AfD discussions based on the subject matter and whether or not there is enough coverage in secondary sources to warrant notability? Can we please not try to shift the focus of the debate to parsing my level of expertise? Cirt (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Cirt (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
And you nominated "Tone scale" for deletion rather than using your alleged knowledge to fix it? Surely the latter would serve the reader better.
I will be working on the articles, and have asked others to help (and, FWIW, specifically asked them not to comment on the AFD unless they're a regular Wikipedia editor already, as it's not a poll - that the very best thing they could do would be to work on the articles). However, ignorant mass nomination for deletion is a problem, one that seriously needs attention, and one that this is merely the latest example of - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break
Please see the recent AfD I nominated for Fear (novel). A user from the AfD showed me that there was enough coverage in independent sources, per WP:NOTE, and I voluntarily withdrew my own AfD. That's all I want - a discussion based on whether or not there is independent coverage of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show me politely by commenting about the articles and not about me, that any of these articles have significant coverage in independent sources as per WP:NOTE - I will voluntarily withdraw any of these AFDs. I do wish you would be more polite and AGF though. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Look, I'm sorry things recently seem to be getting heated relatively quickly. I apologize if it came across that I was mass deleting things I was ignorant of, but that's not the case. I just don't want to assess notability based on my own personal opinion, but rather based on whether or not there is coverage in independent sources, enough to have an article that is based on these sources, and not based on WP:OR, or on primary sources written by Hubbard/Scientology, which then opens up the tendency for WP:OR. So far you haven't really given much assertion or evidence of coverage in independent sources about any of these subjects - but just keep on commenting again and again about me. I'll do my best to try not to get offended that you are doing this and I will try to assume good faith that you mean well in your comments. Again, if you just show a couple examples of some coverage/discussion in independent sources that are not primary sources - I will voluntarily withdraw that AfD. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I also come to realize that I should not have sent these all to AfD at the same time, but one at a time, and for that I apologize. I will not do something like that again. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that this IP address was indef blocked by you back in 2005 beccause it was believed to be an open proxy. I came across it while doing some user talk shared ip tagging (at User talk:204.185.159.249). I don't think that it's likely to be an open proxy or a zombie computer since the address is registered to an educational institution, so I was wondering if you would object to my unblocking the IP address? Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I discussion
Hi David. There's a discussion ongoing at AN/I regarding your block of User:Piperdown as a sock of WordBomb. Just to let you know, and that we would appreciate your weighing in their with your comments as to the block. Apparently, Piperdown has been blocked for some time but requested unblock review just today so User:Cla68 has requested community discussion - Alison❤07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on several AFDs last week. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better.
When I get a spare bl**dy second (stupidly busy at work and home), I look forward to working with Cirt on our Scientology articles :-) There's quite a lot to be done ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*boggle* You know, Jimbo's talk page really is the greatest crank magnet on the whole wiki. I'll try to think of something worth saying there ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future of WP:WEA page
Hi there. Following some discussion on the talk page of the Proposed decision page of the IRC Arbitration case, I was wondering what your views were on the future of WP:WEA after the case closes? I don't know if you are aware that there was a second MfD on the page, which was withdrawn by the nominator as the arbitration case was in progress? Anyway, the first MfD is here, and the second one is here. Since the IRC case has included some pretty clear signals that the page has a specific function and is owned by you, I thought it would be best to get your views on how to handle any future deletion nominations. Would you view those nominations as valid? Could the function of the page be fulfilled another way or in a different location? Would you consider merging the content back to the main WP:IRC page? Would you consider moving the WP:WEA page to your userspace (or meta)? I guess the questions really boil down to whether the discussions that originally led to the formation of WP:WEA are still valid, and if so, whether those discussions over-ride community processes such as MfD? It might seem like a difficult question to answer (or maybe it is simple), but one of the reasons I'm asking is that if the arbitration case closes without any resolution of this issue, there may be more drama. It is possible that a pre-emptive action by you could avoid future drama, which would be good news all round, really. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really owned by the arbcom, looks like, after Jimbo indicated that yes, the arbcom really does have the power to act on bad things happening there. I haven't been on IRC in months and don't anticipate being there again soon, so I should really pull back from overinvolvement. I'm not wedded to the page's existence myself. It's All A Tricky One. - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies David, I stopped by to let you know - I'd assumed you'd seen the post on the arb case proposed decision talk, or village pump. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED!
Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please comment on what your post of May 14th, 2007 on that talk page specifically requested of editors? I would like to remove category Living persons, per the category disappeared persons page, with the understanding that BLP concerns should still be addressed. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may want to remove the BLP cat but I can't see him getting any consensus to do so as there is still no evidence she is dead. Thanks, SqueakBox20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spinal Tap logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spinal Tap logo.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.
David, You created Wikipedia:Rouge admin? Wow, I'll try to treat you with a bit more respect.
Meanwhile we are just coming on wiki with the 2008 Wikipedia DVD (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection/additions and updates for changes versus this year so far, so if you want to influence how it goes now is a good time. If you can help encourage people to help that's good. We are trying to push some of the volunteers onto WP to work here. --BozMotalk19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Bias warning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Actually, what I have to do is rewrite insect mouthparts-- it's rather impossible to talk about the, er, parts in isolation, especially with stag beetles on one end of the spectrum and butterplies on the other. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
I heard you used to have an interest in scientology. There's an article called Project Chanology about world events you might want to check out. It's possible you may even be involved in it and if so, for curiousity's sake, have you done any of the worldwide protests against scientology that members of Project Chanology have done? You're rather famous on the english wikipedia so it would be cool if you did. 66.53.212.30 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the mailing list archives, and noticed among other comments in that thread, the following: "That Wikimedia takes a proactive approach to ferreting out possible copyright violations - and BetacommandBot is a perfect example of how we take proactive care with this stuff" - BetacommandBot is an interesting case, in that it technically doesn't look for copyright violations (it actually looks for non-free images that fail to mention somewhere on the image page the article they are being used in). That many of those images are in fact lacking non-free use rationales, or lack any sort of claim of fair use, is a fortuitous overlap. The same number of possible copyright violations might be detected if someone got a bot to randomly tag images for people to check! And the definition of a "copyright violation" is interesting as well. I think it is best to reserve that term for copyrighted images that people upload under a GFDL tag, or fail to provide a source, or otherwise completely deny or fail to reveal the actual copyright status. Fair use is not in itself a copyright violation. Though any non-free use rationale on Wikipedia can indeed be contested, that doesn't make it a copyright violation.
The other main thrust of that thread, people uploading their own images under fair use, is just rehashing old arguments. It is clear (though I made this mistake myself at one point) that the upload screen quite correctly insists that if you are the author of the text or image, you must release it under a free license (or into the public domain). The point that people seem to be missing (though I haven't read the whole thread) is that someone else can upload the image for you and claim fair use, but, and this is the crucial point, you can only do this under Wikipedia's EDP (WP:NFCC) if the image has previously been published. That (and the namespace restriction) immediately eliminates quite a lot of the self-made images that people want to upload but don't want to release under a free license. It's ironic really, though - people don't want to freely release the pic of themselves that they put on their user page, because they don't want the image to end up on Commons and have some random person use it to illustrate an article in the Japanese (say) Wikipedia, or have some random person use it for whatever reason, but then are told that they can instead link externally to a geocities (say) webpage where they can put the picture. From where, of course, anyone can download the picture and do exactly the same things (well, not putting it on Commons, but you know what I mean). It just seems silly to freely release a picture that you created for a specific purpose of putting on your user page, and which isn't part of the content of the encyclopedia.
Does Commons have a way of dealing with such non-encyclopedic images, or does it try and tag them as "picture of Caucasian male in early 20s" and "Japanese girl in late 40s", and so on, and hope that someone will find a use for such pictures? Otherwise, the pictures are being used in the sense of being a free webhost. Ditto the "meetup" pictures. See WP:MEETUP, though I suppose those could be useful for a future "history of Wikimedia meetups" free-content publication. No encyclopedia content, but then Commons serves more projects than just the Wikipedias. It would be nice, though, to be able to document Wikipedia history in a way that isn't susceptible to being rewritten and redistributed. Sure, the wiki process is good for creating the meta-history books, but after such documents have been finished, there should be a way to deposit a permanent record, and I'm not sure the GFDL doesn't work against the process of archiving permanent records. I guess what I am saying is that stuff inside the archives can be GFDL (and reused), but the overall archive and how it is arranged should be more restricted. Does that make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this come from? Feel free to disagree with me on the merits of the article, and yes, I agree, Edison makes an excellent case for the article to be kept. But please assume good faith on my part. What makes you think that I wouldn't do any research before nominating? Apparently Edison has found what I haven't been able to find. Kudos to him. But that certainly doesn't warrant your incivility and gross assumption of bad faith. This is completely uncalled for. AecisBrievenbus14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no question of your good faith. I do strongly question your judgement, and would suggest a few weeks of nothing but article writing before wasting AFD time further - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your confusion of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith rather than suggesting that every nomination by a particular person should be severely scrutinized for creating a nomination about fictional articles. It is entirely possible that not every single editor of Wikipedia is aware of every single arbitration case that is currently pending. Metros (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with these people who can't tell calling judgement poor from assumption of bad faith? Did you read the above sections before leaving what appears to be a hit'n'run comment? - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if a person has no basis on which to judge, how can you call their judgment poor? If a person is totally unaware of the arbitration case, they don't have a basis to judge on. Metros (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest they learn something about a highly contentious area before considering they have the judgement required to nominate topics within it for deletion. Surely asking for people to know what they're doing isn't asking too much? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To a casual Wikipedian editor, there's no reason for that person to even realize such meta issues exist. How are they to even know it's a highly contentious area? I don't see a reason to question that person's judgment just because they are not a highly-involved editor who sees "the other side" of Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly boggled that you consider deletion nominations suitable material for a casual editor. AFD's noted (press-noted!) hostility to commenters with a low edit count suggests you're dead wrong on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting on the article for deletion but in the future please refrain from making comments about the nominator and stick to the subject of the AFD and why it should be kept. I found it very uncivil that most of your comment was about my lack of judgment than as to why the article should be kept. --Ozgod (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When we're talking about something as important as the matter of deleting a topic entirely from Wikipedia, the judgement of the nominator - and whether they're wasting precious time on AFD - is a highly relevant matter. I really don't see how you can claim it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your fourth comment regarding this matter. Perhaps you should be changing your behaviour in accordance to other user's comments. seicer | talk | contribs17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the response to BetacommandBot on fair-use abuse demonstrates, that counts for very little. Perhaps you could answer the question I asked elsewhere. rather than attempting to dodge it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred you left a message on my talk page about how you feel about my nomination of the article rather than your comment on the AFD being about how you feel about my lack of judgment rather than why the article should be kept. The whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Wikipedia; not an area to air your opinions about other editors. --Ozgod (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as the recent media attention to AFD demonstrates, poor judgement on the part of nominators and participants is precisely the actual problem. Therefore, claiming that people are not allowed to name the actual problem actively hampers dealing with it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there is a flaw with the AFD process and how AFD nominations by all mean air your concerns on the talk page. Again, an AFD is about articles for deletion which is a discussion about the article in question. If you'd like, feel free to make a request to create ENAFD - Editors Nominating Articles For Deletion - to better facilitate you in expressing your concerns and opinions. As you feel that editors are cluttering AFD with "silly" nominations you too are cluttering the process by airing your opinions at an inappropriate time and venue. --Ozgod (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be attempting to ignore the issue by trying to steer it somewhere you can ignore it. I suggest this is very much not the best move for the encyclopedia, even though it would make you personally feel more comfortable - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see deleted revs, from which it is not hard to figure out that Kozioł is a hoax. Pawlus? Google.pl doesn't do so well. There's no Polish-specific news search I'm aware of, so I tried Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta: nada. Paint me surprised that one of the 4 ghits is some splod on an American Friends-United style site. It's one thing to argue against the notability guideline fetish and general laziness of nominators, quite another when you want to ignore WP:V and include what are very probably hoaxes. Best regards, Angus McLellan(Talk)20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been closing off a few AfDs, mainly those now clean of the odd injunction from the committee on Episodes and Characters. I'm not sure your comments are entirely fair to all the nominators you have pointed them at, as I don't suppose most people think to check for an arbcom injunction (of possibly the most sweeping scope ever) before nominating something for AfD. It seems a little unfair to suggest banning people from AfD for what might not even really qualify as a mistake (ignorance being a reasonable defence in this case). In any case, the injunction is dispensed with now, so you're done, I hope. Incidentally, if media attention has you jittery, then I'd think that the tone of your comments would be very likely indeed to attract salacious journalistic attention more than the nomination itself. Splash - tk00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your AfD comments
Dear David Gerrard, when you wrote "jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator [etc...]" [4] of Coredesat's actions, I'm not sure you were aware that the article was 1) greatly improved since it had been nominated 2) speedily deleted as an unreferenced stub that made no claims of notability 3) send to AfD by the admin who undeleted it. I really find it hard to fault Coredesat for 1) undeleting the article and 2) sending an newly undeleted and unreferenced stub to AfD. Coredesat's actions seem hardly unreasonable and clearly done in the best of intentions, and I don't understand why you need to unload such contempt on him. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Funny, Tony, you had no problem with community action earlier in the ArbCom case. David, I really think you ought to retract your last statement. They have a term for those who undo others administrator actions without consensus. It's called wheel-warring. It's something you can lose your mop for, and I don't think anyone wants that. The vast majority of the people who have contributed on AN have stated flat out that a multiple-time caught sockpuppet master deserves a block or a ban. As stated previously, the ArbCom has allowed the community to extend sanctions that they considered to not be strong enough. We have the primary exhibit in that, not two weeks old, in Archtransit's case. If you want to oppose, fine, whatever. But I strongly urge you to take back your threat to wheel-war. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept community consensus, holding my nose if necessary. If there is one admin prepared to unblock then the requisite level of consensus does not exist. Moreover, as I remarked earlier, there is surprisingly strong opposition to the proposal. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tony, Consensus does not mean unanimity, no matter how much you want to reframe the debate. And be totally honest, the only thing you're surprised about is that it's gotten this far without someone closing the debate and stating "We know better then you". SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or read WP:WHEELWAR One shouldn't undo another admin's actions without consensus. Looks like when it supports you, consensus is "50% + me" and when it doesn't it is "It has to be unanimous" SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, I have enormous respect for you. Yet I really hope you soften your statement about unblocking. There's an unresolved tension between the definition of a community ban and the definition of a wheel war and no one wants to see another arbitration case follow on the heels of this. Whether or not that outcome would actually happen, your post does raise worries that it could. I hope Wikipedians on both sides of the fence can set aside our individual differences and resolve this situation harmoniously. DurovaCharge!21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An acrimonous debate over three sections of WP:AN is in no way a "consensus" on a community ban; any such block would be entirely against blocking policy. And I think someone trying to raise a lynch mob in anticipation of an arbcom decision not going their way is a matter of grave concern - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shared your concerns about process when this idea was first floated at the proposed decision talk page and was surprised to see the only arbitrators who responded at that time cite Archtransit and state that they would not object to a community ban proposal. Regarding the lynch mob characterization (an inflammatory phrase that would be better to jettison if possible), I objected to Jehochman's first move for a community ban discussion because Mantanmoreland deserved a fair chance to present his side of events. Many of the people who now support a siteban were willing to extend good faith to Mantanmoreland but sorely disappointed by a defense that was largely predicated upon a partisan stand in in an offsite dispute, and that doubted both the Committee's and the community's fitness to question his actions. We can agree to disagree about some of these points, I hope. More than anything else, I'd like to see a sober and rational discussion that leads to a firm consensus. DurovaCharge!22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, why haven't you apologized or taken accountability for wrongfully blocking an entire town in Utah and Piperdown, who isn't WordBomb or an employee of Overstock.com? Cla68 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you haven't noticed, Image:Replace this image female.svg is up for deletion (nomination has been done on March 12, but without tagging the image page; I complete the nom today). Given the large number of pages where this image is used, I believe some discussion should take place before deleting. Tizio14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Not to be picky... but your AWB assisted edit to add the "replace this image" pic into the musician infoboxes... is placing the field above the name field in the infobox when it finishes. Which is fine because the Img field and the name field (and any other field for that matter) still function no matter what order they are in. But my inner an*l perfectionist says the field order should be maintained... fairly close... to the template guideline and example. Mainly because only about 10% of the editors on Wiki actually know how to format the box properly in the first place.... and if the box is altered too much compared to the template example it introduces that chance happening that a newbie/novice will end up breaking the box when they try to edit it. Just hought you'd like to know.(and maybe you don't care) But my inner perfectionist is now appeased that I have whined about it and so now I can go feed it some tea and a scone to calm it down. Have a nice day. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, it does work precisely the same, but I can appreciate the an*lity irritation factor :-) You would probably believe the remarkable regular expressions I've concocted to do this stuff. Evil, evil. I'll have to see if I can work out something to preserve where Name = goes ... though not straight away.
By the way, I'm hoping for more than a few free content images from putting placeholders on the musician pages - we've got a new photo submission email address where artists and their agents can send photos they're releasing under a proper free licence and Commons users on OTRS will put the pic on the servers. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission - a piece of genius from Raul654. And I think it's about ready to more widely publicise. Not only generating more free content, but changing industry expectations of what you need to do to promote. I'm somewhat embarrassed to still be able to point to Image:Richardschiff.jpg on Richard Schiff as an example of why artists and agents should release good promo images - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only images of living celebrities allowed in wikipedia are those taken by would-be paparazzi with dime-store cameras. How many paparazzi photos are there likely to be of Ray Stevens? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above - we've been getting slowly increasing numbers of decent celebrity promo pics. And there's no harm in asking on the article page, certainly while non-free images of living non-recluses are verboten per WP:NONFREE - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with your mass edits. Removal of linebreaks, such as this one here, can seriously injure the formatting of an infobox. Thanks. Pats1T/C00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what it's done - AWB has a setting to do general fixes, including fixing use of BR tags instead of newlines ... which messes up the intentional formatting of the boxes. I've switched that off, and I'll go back and fix what I did. D'oh! Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox stuff doesn't affect the rendered infobox - remember that's just a series of parameters for the template. The interwiki sort order is as determined by AWB, and should use the standard one, which it pulls from the server each time it starts. I believe there was an AWB bug report or two about this. I've switched off sorting interwikis for now, though - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that was just a random freak-out on AWB's part? Weird, it's never done that for me before. Well anyway, thanks for explaining, it's good to know I'm not losing my mind. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interwiki sort order, I expect so. The messy template wikitext, all my fault - I'm tweaking the regexps I'm using to leave less of a mess. .NET's own special take on PCREs are just subtly different enough to any other take on PCREs to make life interesting - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Anomalist1.png. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arises from seeing recent edits via the recent changes in the indonesia project device on my user page.
While it is encouraging to see an ex Perth Western Australian (sic) ask for free images of Indonesian sports persons - gasp - we of the very harrassed overworked and absolutely bewildered Indonesia Project english speaking editors noticeboard and trying to keep it from slipping into a bloody mirror of the indonesian indonesian project (ie WP Indonesia) people are finding that we will have to create a device to stop the indonesian language list of red links obsessed indonesians with little or no english from the indonesian project over contribute to the english wp indonesia project - as you have ventured into the territory - expect requests, pleading and various exasperations of the few who dare to stand in front of the tide of misapplied material trickled from the wp indonesia. Ok so i could have said it in 10 words - youve got a hundred. cheers SatuSuro12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing will be to watch the image upload queue. We expect more crap to come in. But that's the Wiki Way! i.e. (1) get lots of rubbish (2) throw away most of it. Oh well, it's got us this far - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - its just that at WP Indonesia we are either planning - or going to try draw a line in the sand to speak - thanks, maybe nothing will happen - at least thats what happens at the tasmania project - its a bit like sitting at a perth railway station during a rail strike :) SatuSuro12:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grant Wiley
I don't know what you were doin' when you edited Grant Wiley but you completly DESTROYED the stats table. Why did you change || to | ??? Doin' so, RUINED IT! Yeah, I'm mad cuz I had to take time outta a major edit to fix your screw up! Crash Underride03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Owwwwwwwwww. That's horrible. I'll look closely into WTF I was doing and how much more of a mess I have to clean up. Sorry, sorry. I'll get onto this shortly - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry to be hateful, but I was just p.o.ed when I wrote that. Sorry if I offended you. Crash Underride
No no, I mean what it did was horrible :-) First rule of editing with AWB: you are personally responsible for cleaning up all messes you make with it! - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
g'day david......
I've been trying to promote a project recently called Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which aims to sit alongside the good work of the wikipedia weekly folk in encouraging better communications between wiki folk of all persuasions and interests.... Our next scheduled chit chat is planned for tomorrow night at 00.00 (26th March) - and whilst a late one for you, I thought I'd drop you a line to see a) if you're interested in popping along tomorrow, or b) if you're interested / available in principle to join a conversation in the future - I think it'd be cool to have you!
It's not the technically slickest operation in the world, and you'd require a Skype ID, microphone and speakers if you did want to join in - otherwise, let me know if you've got any other questions at all! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No free image
Hi David, I've noticed you're adding the "no free image" image to lots and lots of Oregon-related biographies. I don't think this is the best thing. Many of the articles are reasonably good articles as is, rated "Start" or "B" class. The stock image makes a pretty good article look incomplete and unpolished, where there might not be much issue. We are extremely active in Oregon recruiting new members, keeping track of requests for images, etc. We are even working on proposed legislation for the 2009 session that would make state-produced images copyleft or public domain, making an enormous quantity of photos available for this purpose, and we also have a monthly meetup] in Portland that often involves collaboration on stuff like adding pictures.
In short, I think there's a good reason for the distinction between "article space" and "talk/wikiproject space," and that it should be our goal to present the cleanest possible articles to readers. Opportunities to recruit new help abound, and we're doing especially well at that in Oregon; though I definitely appreciate the spirit that motivates your recent additions, I think there are better ways to accomplish the goal.
Um, no wikiproject has the power to declare itself closed to new content, nor closed to particular classes of users, nor to claim ownership of a series of articles. And if the article is a living bio without a picture, it is in fact unfinished. Wikipedia is a work in progress - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (Please read this struck-out response as if it wasn't written by someone being a touchy arse - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Easy there -- nobody's declaring anything. Certainly not a Wikiproject -- I'm expressing my view to you. I'm informing you of some of the things going on in the WikiProject, not attributing my views to the entire project. Your disagreement is not unwelcome, to the degree that it comes from a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Your accusations about what my words represent, however, are entirely unnecessary. I'd like to continue this discussion, if you're open to it, but from your response it looks like that's a long shot. -Pete (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're quite right. I apologise for being an arse in my response above. What I mean is that even if you have a nice polished article, it's got to be open to new content, e.g. obvious things like missing pictures. Or red links in an article. Even a featured article is open to editing. And adding new stuff will often make the article lumpy and less polished, but all of Wikipedia is a work in progress and ridiculously far off finished - and articles do go through a cycle of add stuff, polish, add a lump of stuff, re-polish, add a lump of stuff, re-polish. So putting up picture placeholders is part of that cycle. Eventually it will get a picture and be a better article.
But it probably wouldn't have gotten that picture without a direct request for it. I put the placeholders on articles - particularly on every living bio I can - because they noticeably work really well at getting pictures, and showing the need for pictures. There shouldn't be a current politician article in the world that doesn't have a photo on it (I alerted the wikimediauk-l list to the disgrace that not having every UK politician article have a picture is). Etc.
Okay-- thanks much for the clarification. I have to run, but in short...I entirely and wholeheartedly agree about incompleteness in general not being a bad thing. I often add redlinks where they are likely to be created, sometimes "See also" items that will hopefully be worked into full paragraphs some day...obviously stub tags, and short sections. My problem with the image is that it takes a whole lot of real estate on the article, to say something that, I think, is pretty obvious to anybody who gets the idea that Wikipedia is editable.
That said, if you have experience that says these things are effective, that's news to me, and worth considering. The only ones I'm aware of are ones that have been sitting around for months or over a year. Anyway, I appreciate the fuller articulation of your goal, and will try to respond in more detail and/or take my camera with me next time I go to City Hall. -Pete (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that are easily filled, get filled easily. The harder ones can stick around for months and years ;-) For UK politicians, our approach at present is to work through the parties - approaching MPs directly gets them trying to release stuff under home-crafted non-free licenses or whatever *headdesk*. The US is a lot better off in this regard with Federal public domain, and that doesn't necessarily apply to the states but is a good guideline for them. Many are almost impossible to fill. Etc. They don't magically make stuff appear in weeks, but can in months. Etc. Magnus Manske has some useful toys on the toolserver for searching for replacements for them on Flickr as well :-) It's all fun - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is so for politicians, but any in context photo of the vast majority of footballers is likely to be either subject to copyright, or illegally, and probably poorly, taken. People might have a snap of their favourite player half-cut at an end of season social, but that does not enhance the article. If there were a more subtle tag that requested an image, it might bear fruit, but that silhouette is just plain ugly on a page. The lack of a photo might be remiss, it is not something that spoils the appearance of a page in the way that this does. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might presume that as theory, but in practice I see a lot of good spectator snapshots on footballer articles already and no theoretical reason why there wouldn't be more. Furthermore - in practice - we already have the phenomenon of famous sports photographers with extensive collections putting their seconds up on Commons under GFDL - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In practice there has been a comment suggesting the image to appear as a default in the template(s) if none is specified rather than tons of edits. Agathoclea (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could knock that together by stealing code from elsewhere - but distinguishing boys and girls will be a problem. Unless there is a particular template which is gender specific you would want me to try. Agathoclea (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some templates have an attribute "gender =" - this would be useful to add to the templates. As far as I can tell, in general male:female bios are about 5:1 to 9:1. Some templates, like the football player ones, are about 100:1 male:female, but one still has to get the female ones right ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Football biographies
Hi David, I have noticed that you are going through all of football biographies on my watchlist in first name aplha order adding the no-free-image picture. I believe that the consensus at Wikiproject Football is that it is unneccessary to add it to all infoboxes because it is so unlikely that any particluar user is going to have access to a free image that cannot already be found on the internet and the fact that it encourages users with no understanding of copyright issues to upload copyrighted images (a constant problem already). If we did want the no-free image pic, it would be easy to set it as a default on the footballer infobox, but consensus seems to be against it, so it wont be done like that. In the case of actors, scientists, politicians, historical figures, etc, it might be an idea to go to the relevant projects and consult whether the no-free-image picture is wanted, and then add it as the default image, saving you tens of thousands of edits. Regards, Englishpeasant19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, asking tends to get images, as noted above, so I'm strongly inclined to continue; the objection seems to be based only on conjecture. Do you have a pointer to this consensus formation? From your description, it sounds entirely conjectural - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll be getting quantifiable numbers from the latest en:wp full history database backup as soon as Erik Zachte finds a handy machine with 16GB memory to process it on ...) - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that when someone feels like going through the history dump. I just asked again on wikitech-l.
Please stop, or at least contribute to the discussion at the Football WikiProject. These ugly templates serve only to make an article less attractive. - fchd (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, there's quite a swell of discussion about your recent splurge on WP:FOOTBALL articles asking for images. We (the project) are subject to enormous amounts of copy-written uploads which have to be correctly dealt with and your recent mass of edits makes life a lot worse for us. I understand what you're attempting to do but it's causing a massive headache for the members of the project as we have to go on a mass patrol of people uploading non-free images they find on Google to sate your requests. In a lot of cases (say, pre 1990 or so) these "free" images will be almost impossible to source. I'm asking you now to stop editing the pages to add these "requests" as they cause more problems than they solve. Feel free to discuss the issue with me further but I will revert any further requests you make as they are disruptive and add nothing to the project. I hope you understand and look forward to discussing the matter further should you wish to. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying that asking for participation will encourage bad participation, and then gathering up a bunch of people to actively discourage participation, is ... greatly missing the point of a wiki.
At the moment I'm working on gathering up-to-date numbers on the effectiveness of the placeholders in securing images. I'll get back to you - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter James Knight image request again
Is there any way to get AWB not to add such a request (apart from getting a copyleft image, which we've got Buckley's of)? Andjam (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm making it a regular practice to revert your additions of the "no free image" image as I see them on Oregon-related bios. The discussion at WPT:ORE makes it clear there is strong consensus against including the image. I'd of course prefer that you not add them to begin with, but you seem set against taking input, so that's a debate I'm probably going to pass on. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to interpret it as ownership if you like. I don't. I see it as a strong consensus of a group of people interested in certain articles. I note that another WikiProject has voiced objections as well, and you have been similarly dismissive with them. Anyway, if you feel I or anyone is violating WP:OWN, I guess you could start an WP:RFC or some other bureaucratic process. Let me know. -Pete (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Pete's mom. I've just had a very interesting time, first locating this discussion, starting with #No free image above (to which I was alerted by your comment on Pete's talk page), then following up by reading the material on WPT:ORE. (I actually had quite a time finding an example of the template in question! but I did.) I'm writing here because, although I can tell (David) that you're not really happy with the outcome, I am so impressed by this example of "the Wikipedia process" (of discussion and consensus) working well. Thank you (all) for sticking with it.
-- Martha (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*giggle* Well, that's not the worst motive in the world when you're trying to get something positive accomplished! -- Martha (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. AWB looks like a pretty useful tool but like all bots I'm sure it sometimes does things you didn't intend. I've already had some trouble with the copyright on this image so I've been keeping a close eye on it; it's taught me a lot about the way things work around here. Have a good one Iamblessed (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be just a bit of a sorcerer's apprentice at times ... look after the baby, idly clicking the big green "Save" button, then get a talk page notice of a mess you have to clean up ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maybe a list of corrections between stable vetted versions of articles
This might be useful for a list of corrections between stable vetted versions of articles after or as part of our implementing stable (flagged) versions. Once we mark a version of an article as authoritative, it would be very useful for it to have an associated page so the when it is replaced with a more authoritative page, the changes that are specifically to fix errors are noted so that they are not unfixed because someone thought the fix was a typo or an oversight. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
w00t! Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission is where people can go to submit a pic themselves; and/or email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org (with full statement "I am the owner of this image and release it under" etc etc). We need to start seriously publicising the photo submission channel, and that's part of why I'm going hog wild with the placeholders - they really do recruit pics of people themselves, as well as pics from readers who may never have thought of contributing before - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's under a free licence, so that image could (and should) be transferred to Commons and used here from there. Keep the same name if possible and mark the de: copy as also being on Commons - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No free image
Your edits to add this image placeholder to drivers in the British Touring Car Championship have resulted in problems with the pages. You've added the image not only to the infobox, but below the navigation box at the bottom of the page. See Rick Kerry for an example. Please can you fix these pages, and be more careful when using AWB to make widespread edits in the future. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looked like it was just picking up on any template named BTCC rather than the BTCC infobox in particular. Seems all fixed now. Not sure how successful the image plea will be, especially for older drivers mind you. AlexJ (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sometimes happens is you get an enthusiast who happens to have a collection of old shots, sees the placeholder and thinks "I've got pics, I'll add 'em to the 'pedia!" That's always nice. I have two boxes of photos going back twenty years of Australian indie rock bands that I need to scan and upload, for example (e.g. Image:1989-01-02 Kim Salmon at home 3.jpg) - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, there is something wrong with your changes. They are adding the pipe at the end while also adding no space between pipe image and pipe imagesize. --pete01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering that a minor blemish when it happens as it doesn't affect page content, but I've tried (and will try harder) to make it smoother - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extraordinarily confused on Mary Robinette Kowal's Wiki page. The image I uploaded was removed, with something regarding copyright, despite the fact Kowal publicly gave me that image, one she owns the copyright to, specifically for her Wikipedia page. The permission, as well as her telling me which photo to upload, is viewable by anyone on her website. Yet despite everything I told Wikipedia, it was still removed and your tagline is requesting an image on the history page. Please advise, as it smacks of far too much CYA and not enough CS on the administration's part, and you seem knowledgeable. Many thanks.ThorneyDayna (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images of dead people
David, got a another question about what you are adding. The statement "only free-content images are allowed for depicting living people. Non-free and "fair use" images, e.g. promo photos, CD/DVD covers, posters, screen captures, etc., will be deleted - see WP:NONFREE" I understand it some what. But what about dead people? Is it ok to add non free pictures of dead people? Curious as to what the answer is. Thanks --pete09:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonfree images of living people are almost always removed immediately (the exception being noted recluses like J. D. Salinger, and there may be one when it's arguably depicting a historic event rather than the people in it per se, etc., etc., arguments continue for another 100 talk page archive pages). For dead people, nonfree images are usually more tolerated, but (like any fair use) each and every case would need justification on a per-article basis, possible arguments with the querulous at WP:IFD, etc. For now I'm just openly encouraging people to think in terms of images of living people as contributable encyclopedic material, and it seems to be netting a few :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free image placeholders/opera singers and other classical musicians
Hi. In the past participants in the Opera Project and similar classical music projects have preferred not to have the kind of 'Free image needed' icons that you are currently attaching to pages. Would it be possible to leave them off classical musician pages? Or possible to put them on talk pages? After all they are directed an editors and are not of much interest to readers. What do you think? What would be best? Best wishes. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are in fact directed at readers, and work to solicit images from readers - the typical case is someone who happens to have a pile of pics and the placeholder lights up a lightbulb above their heads for "Hey, I have a pic of that!" There's no reason living singers the opera project claims would be intrinsically more difficult to get good photos of than any other singers - less reason, in fact, as they tend to work longer. And a living bio without a photo is arguably an article that is not finished, and pretending it is is simply incorrect.
Wikiprojects aren't allowed to tag articles with their interest in project space (ever since the Pokemon project tried putting in an article series box advertising themselves on the article and promptly got slapped down), they can only indicate an interest (rather than "ownership" per se) in talk space - if I'm to avoid these for you, how would you suggest this be quickly determined from the article space text? (e.g. the word "soprano" does not indicate the opera project exclusively or even close to it) Please help me here - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am obviously an idiot this morning. I've set it to skip on the word "opera". Buhhhhh. - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this. The main cats for opera singers are :
Moratorium on free image placeholders/opera singers and other classical musicians?
Hi. Would it be possible to stop all work on these while the debate is on? As you will know there is strong opposition to the use of the graphic on all pages (not just opera singers), see here. Thanks again for your cooperation. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What debate are you talking about? Is it specific to classical musicians? I wonder if we should open this up to WP:RFC as it seems to arouse strong reactions from multiple quarters. -Pete (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the proposal here. It's not specific to classical musicians. The proposal is to suspend use of the placeholder pending a full centralized discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
captions
Can you remove any caption there may be when you supply the placeholder image? Hangovers from older versions lurk in the template waiting to reappear. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way we are planning a major new revision in May. Meanwhile since you commented on it being a benefit from the project, have a look at the rubbish one of our volunteers has been finding on the years pages: [6]
Cheers --BozMotalk11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really good idea? I thought it was obvious? I'm also rather surprised at how discussion has died down (somewhat, I know it's not really me) since I arrived. Does no one like the idea of a trial period, or am I in the wrong time zone? :-) BTW, as someone who is in the UK and in London (I think), could I get your opinion on how the BLP issues with the Ian Blair article were handled. See the page history and the talk page, and my comments here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that particular article was resolved. However, I'm thankful we still have editors like Doc glasgow and JzG on the coalface of OTRS, whacking away at dodgy BLPs with the BLP Machete of Encyclopaedic Quality. I don't think it matters for us to have grey and tepid BLPs for now, or indeed a lack of a given bio - we have years, we don't have to be finished tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Which is why I favour shorter, bare facts, BLPs, rather than the proposed deletion process. Get people working on the BLP backlog, rather than arguing at BLP-AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, more mailing list ramblings. You said here that "This is why the lead summary of articles is *vastly* important. It must be a complete standalone short article in itself. By pushing this stylistic rule on en:wp, we can make it a better encyclopedia and more reusable for those without internet connections." I thought this was already stated at WP:LEAD? That says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." I think most competent editors are aware of this, though there are problems with short articles that teeter between being a stub (like Martin Barry) and the slightly longer articles that aren't quite long enough for a substantial lead, such as John Allan Broun. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it ignored in a lot of cases - long article with one-sentence intro. I thought it'd be worth emphasising considering it actually worked for our reusability - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a template somewhere, where you can request an expansion of the lead section. Actually, I don't think, there must be something like that somewhere. Nature and a vacuum and all that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder images - haven't got involved in the debate, but I noticed the placeholder on William Henry Perkin, Jr. - would you or someone be able to generate a list where old pictures (ie. of dead, usually 19th century or early 20th century) are needed, and in particular those where public domain pictures might exist (ie. order them by birth date or something). I have some experience of searching for old pictures like that, and would gladly tackle a task like that. It gets tricky though. For example, see here and here. BTW, how on earth did you distinguish between men and women? Looking for "he" and "she" in the articles? Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for old pictures tag is an excellent idea, probably for talk pages rather than articles (they're not so easily fulfilled by readers). Yes, I looked at every article and picked "he" or "she", which is why you'll see some edits with summary "whoops" where I went back and fixed it :-) That's why I used AWB (where you glance over the wikitext and press the big green "Save" button personally each and every time) rather than get a fully-automatic bot approved. The male/female versions are way nicer than Image:Replace this image1.svg, the genderless version - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing a category or list. :-) I'll quietly avoid the question of a "request for fair use pictures" tag for dead people where existing photos are still in copyright... Maybe that should be handled by a "request for people to write nicely to copyright holders and try and get at least one reasonable quality freely licensed picture" (I'm actually serious about that). Otherwise you get the situation at Wikipedia talk:NFC#Replaceable images of dead people. Compare Image:Gene roddenberry 1976.jpg (free license) and Image:Gene Roddenberry.jpg (non-free). Are we really stuck with the former for the next hundred years or so? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category intersects?
Hello. On the enwp mailing list recently you mentioned something about category intersects now being tested seriously. Any chance you can tell me where about so I can sneak a look? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. I'll notify the CFD regulars as I suppose they'll be rather interested in this. Should make things enormously simpler. Like you say, \o/ ... Angus McLellan(Talk)21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I talk about you
I talk about you at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform#The BLP claim is not true saying "as David likes to say "a hard assed implementation of the other policies" and as he likes to leave out an insistence on treating living people like living people and not like a building or some other subject of an article (which was Daniel's original complaint - people told him they could edit his article anyway they liked so long as it met wikipedia policies and any harm it caused him was none of their concern).". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't leave that out (all the time) - it's so as not to be dicks about it. A lot of our PR problems come from editors being dicks about things. I think the point is that when you're dealing with real, living people, it's all a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your close of the AfD on election controversy articles
Your close deletes all the more specific articles. By my count, the tally on whether to delete those articles was 7 yes (and that's counting the 4 delete-everything comments) and 7 no, except that it would be 6 yes and 8 no on the "vote suppression" article because Protonk wanted that one deleted.
Given such an equal division, I don't see how anyone could maintain that there was a consensus for deletion. Your explanation of your action doesn't assert consensus. Your explanation seems to consist of saying that you would have responded as R. fiend and Sjakkalle did, although they were a distinct minority.
I realize that AfD's often stir up strong emotions, and that the closing admin on a controversial one like this is often criticized, so I don't mean to attack you personally -- but I'm very upset at what seems to be an increasing tendency to discard the consensus standard. I just rechecked to make sure I hadn't missed a policy change. The rule is still as I remembered it: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'." (from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion)
I suppose that actually tallying numbers will horrify the voting-is-evil crowd, but here's how I assess whether or not there's a consensus to delete the daughter articles: Delete 7 (PhilSandifer, Bonewah, Kironide, Eusebeus, R. fiend, Sjakkalle, Atyndall93); Keep 6 (JamesMLane, OptimistBen, Klausness, Kevin Baas, RyanFreisling, Avenue); Delete "vote suppression" but Keep all others 1 (Protonk). Therefore, there is no perfect consensus or even rough consensus for deleting any of these articles.
So, from here, I suppose there may be a DRV, and there will almost certainly be ferocious edit wars at the one remaining article, as the extensive information in the others must either be removed from Wikipedia or all crammed into what was supposed to be a readily accessible summary. :( Maybe I'll have to do another spinoff article, so that we again have a succinct summary, and the whole cycle can begin again. JamesMLanetc16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" means "a result everyone can probably live with", after all. But you are quite correct that not much will stop a really determined bunch of edit warriors - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your interpretation of consensus, but, even on your view, sometimes there is no result that everyone can probably live with. The AfD indicates this to be one such case. What would stop the deletionists from further edit warring would be the application of the long-established general rule, that a lack of consensus defaults to keep. JamesMLanetc17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The merger would be a huge job with ferocious edit warring every step of the way. The minority of editors who wanted all this material expunged from Wikipedia have now achieved partial success. They will fight against the merger line-by-line. JamesMLanetc17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They could be, and that would certainly be better than losing the information entirely. I'm disinclined to do the work involved in implementing the AfD close because I strongly disagree with the close. If you do it or someone else does it, though, I could put some time in on the task of removing duplication. (Some of the material from the deleted daughter articles is already in the summary article.) If you want to go ahead, just don't be surprised if your merger is promptly reverted by the people who wanted to remove all this information from Wikipedia. JamesMLanetc19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, and as someone who clearly has a dog in the fight already, I think David's move is better than deletion (the position I initially advocated) - the information is still all there and readily accessible in the article history. People can now carefully go through, vet it, make sure it passes all of our policies including that it be significant, and add it to the article as needed. The information is not "lost," but is now, effectively, there to be culled and worked through. All of the improvements to the article that were promised during the debate can now take place, but we can avoid having very bad articles on the subject in the mean time. In that regard, it does seem like a win for everyone - those of us concerned with the very poor quality of the existing articles are now mollified that they are not being actively served up. Those who wanted to improve them can do so at their leisure. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all the information that some people think "passes all our policies" were included in this article, it would be too large to be useful as a summary. That's why half the Wikipedians who responded preferred to have a comparatively succinct summary article, with the details covered in daughter articles. Of course, this isn't a problem from your point of view, because you hold a radically different idea about what information qualifies for retention, which is what drove you to the (improper) venue of AfD in the first place.
You write, "All of the improvements to the article that were promised during the debate can now take place...." Even if we assume that improvements were "promised", you are clearly incorrect if you're implying that this AfD close somehow magically removes some unspecified previous obstacle to improving the articles. The practical problem is the extent of the disagreement about whether a specific portion of this material "passes all our policies". There is no improvement in our coverage of this subject that can be made now that couldn't have been made a month ago. What we've seen instead is enormous time and energy diverted to the AfD, with a good likelihood of further diversion to a DRV. Look at the reverts between Kevin Baas and Bonewah at this history. Bonewah wants to import some material from the "vote suppression" article into this one, enough (in my opinion) to impair its usefulness as a concise summary. Kevin will presumably want to import much more. There's no reason to believe that Kevin will suddenly acquiesce in the excision (or exile to article history) of extensive material that he thinks passes our policies, just because you and Bonewah think it doesn't. The AfD close merely ensures that (1) arguments about voter suppression will be mingled on the same talk page as arguments about exit polls, and (2) whatever the outcome, there will no longer be a concise summary article, even though 9 of the 14 AfD participants wanted to retain a summary article. JamesMLanetc20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isnt going anywhere, why not give the merge process some time to work? If, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, your fears are realized, you can make the case to revert as nothing ever really gets deleted on wiki. All I ask from you is the opportunity to try and make the merge work. Bonewah (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blocking that opportunity. If you start merging stuff into what started out as the summary article, I won't interfere with that process on the grounds that the details belong in daughter articles. On the other hand, it's still my position that the deletion of the daughter articles was against policy (because not supported by a consensus). If your request means you want an assurance that there won't be a DRV, then, sorry, but I won't give that assurance. I'm mulling what to do. JamesMLanetc22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, all i want is to start the merge, if you want to do a DRV then just leave a note in the discussion section, if you would. Bonewah (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minor procedural point: an old AfD note was added to the talk pages of all the redirected articles, but not to Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies. Although that article's nomination was withdrawn partway through the AfD, more than half of that talk page is now taken up with discussions of the AfD and its outcome, so it seems odd not to have such a link back to the AfD. I've added one now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of List of magazines of anomalous phenomena
Re: this. I find redlink lists by using "what links here" on redlinks... There is also Category:Red list. Not sure how easy it is to find them using Google or the internal search engine. I suspect database queries are a better way of finding redlink lists (ie. pages with large number of redlinks). Any idea who could generate such reports? Of course, redlink lists with only a few redlinks left, or blue links pointing to the wrong pages, would not show up that way. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've brought up there, it seems it's been amply demonstrated that the placeholders are controversial. This is not to say that the addition of them by any means was a bad idea; I fully respect that you and everyone adding them did so out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia.
However, the AWB rules state that it's not to be used to make controversial edits. So in hindsight, it seems those semi-automated additions were in (unwitting) violation of that rule.
I'd like to use AWB to reverse those semi-automated edits, with an edit summary like: "Undo automated addition of image placeholder. Feel free to add it back if it's appropriate to this article; or, use this alternate system."
The "alternate system" is one that's still being worked out, but in essence it would function the same, using a small bit of text in the infobox instead of an image.
Anyway -- I just wanted to (1) see how this approach would sit with you, and (2) if you like it, ask for your assistance in using AWB for this purpose, as I lack technical knowledge of the tool.
Sounds like mindlessly literal proceduralist bureaucracy, and quite precisely WP:POINT - that is, going out of your way to invoke something you actually don't want to have happened. At best, it comes across as an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection, but thanks for taking the time to reply. If you'd like to explain it more, I'm all ears, but as phrased I can't make sense of it. -Pete (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePat, the image you added had been deleted a couple weeks before David's edit (with the edit summary: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image." When David added the placeholder, the article was displaying not an image, but a dead link. -Pete (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so maybe I misworded,and ultimately misinterpreted it. But my biggest argument was that the article itself didn't seem necessary - it didn't appear encyclopedic. Of course I'm wrong, but I had no prior understanding of whatever defends this list. I read WP:LIST and saw nothing that specifies how this is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, though nothing appears to be opposed to it, so I suppose it's acceptable. What really made me nominate this article for deletion was that an article of similar type (Video games that have been considered the greatest ever) was deleted due to being an indiscriminate list. I admit to being unsure of what exactly that meant, but seeing as how that article was indiscriminate and POV, this one must be as well. And even if it's not, then why wouldn't we have just re-written the article (the one that got deleted) from scratch? Valtoras (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sweeping assertion you're making there ... that they choose not to in almost all cases does not mean it isn't the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any administrative history (such as a prior deletion) that I should know before creating an article about this guy? I think there's a fair amount that could be said about the fraud case, the libel case, and the Wollersheim case, as well as his history in Scientology (so far as it can be determined). Not just the affidavit. WillOakland (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember your comment about "Ta bu shi da yu" and [citation needed]?
According to "Tbsdy lives" at User talk:WAS 4.250#lol!!!! "Ta bu shi da yu expresses his amusement and is somewhat interested in buying a shirt. He would like to add that he's interested in the creator's ideas and would like to subscribe to his newsletter." and he would like that message "added to WikiEN-l (if not too late)". WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox issues
If you're going to make mass changes like this please ensure you don't break the coding. I would appreciate it if you check all pages you've done this to, especially MPs. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just playing politics - a little to the left - a little to the right ...
(28 September 2005) "Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni, a painter by profession, is no stranger to criticism. Over 20 years in office he has been among the most controversial cabinet ministers, frequently locked in conflict with the NDP and Islamist politicians as well as left-wing oppositional intellectuals. In what was perhaps the fiercest campaign against him to date, last week Hosni was blamed for the disastrous fire that broke out at the Beni Sweif Cultural Palace during a theatrical performance on 5 September -- a tragedy that killed some 48 spectators and injured more. It was in the wake of that incident that he tendered his resignation to President Hosni Mubarak last Wednesday. Three days later, responding to the pleas of some 400 high-profile intellectuals, the president decreed that Hosni should resume his duties. "Despite conceding the ministry's accountability, I had the most to lose in such a disaster," Hosni later declared. "But I realised the charges were directed against me personally, even before investigations began. Feeling I had embarrassed the regime, I decided to bear the political responsibility myself."" - http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/761/profile.htm
and of course all the hot water in got in with his veil comments last year. He's playing politics to protect his friend President Hosni Mubarak. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AWB Linux update
I was looking at the Wine AWB bug, hoping I could someday run AWB, and wondering if I could interest you in trying the latest 1.0-rc1 and the latest AWB and seeing if anything is better. I'd try myself, but I don't think I could really give any useful backtrace data and contribute to the bug report usefully. It appears it's getting there and it would be great to be able to use. Thanks - TaxmanTalk02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-May/093766.html Anyone think they can come
up with better placeholder images?] Take pictures of shadows of people with interesting backgrounds. shadow of a man's head with a funny hat. of a woman's head with long flowing hair. of a dancer's body shadow. backgrounds: brick wall, beach, grass, side of a truck, etc. use a variety of placeholder images, not just two. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contact him for any further information, and let him (and/or the thread at WP:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement) know if anything else needs to be done. But I think that's everything covered? (Please pass along to whomever relevant. I wasn't sure whether to email you, or the hidden mailinglists, or to leave a note here!) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, whilst the relevant people are thinking about the topic, it might be a good idea to plan out the rest of the characters on the hidden-from-sight puzzlepieces (if they're not decided already), so that the 3D Versions and Physical versions can develop further. User:Metaeducation might still be interested and helpful for that. Just a thought. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science
Here you are - some short answers to some questions. I'm still not sure this will actually take place though - look at User:FritzpollBot/FAQ. If you can think of any more questions, please give me a shout Fritzpoll (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: create millions of improperly sourced article with MICROSOFT spam by bot
While I love the idea of using a bot to create articles on real places with proper sourcing, the test cases created so far by User talk:Fritzpoll have improper sourcing and include a spam link to Microsoft. This is unacceptable. I tried noting it on an example and was reverted, so I am saying so here and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. What would Microsoft pay for 4 million articles that say
*[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx Search for ______ in the MSN Encarta atlas]
You may be aware that I've been discussing checkuser with a a few people lately, and that I'm trying at the moment to piece together a few things around the events of november last year. I thought it might be best to come straight to the horses mouth, so to speak, because one of things I'm trying to ascertain relates to this edit. I'm happy to chat privately about this if you'd prefer, and would really value a dialog with you in any forum. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to catch up on this one - it boils down to asking you how you identified User:Petesmiles as a sockpuppet of mine - the temperature's not high at all, but I would appreciate a quick chat.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hey David... you might have seen a message I sent to the mailing list about this one today. In retrospect, the thread I inserted myself into mightn't have been the best one - but I still would like to talk about the above at some point with you. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:T-bags2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:T-bags2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia
Here you suggest a survey of the operating principles of other large wikis would be a useful addition to the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia WikiVersity project. Please add your name as a human resource on the project's main page and start a subpage there on this suggestion of yours. It would indeed be a great additional learning resource and set a good example to all the other participants. Please help in any way you can. Even if it is just a bunch of links on this interesting topic, others can take it from there in ye old wiki way we know and love. Please help. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Greg has decided to volunteer as the person responsible for project interface with the general public. I would be far more comfortable with you volunteering for that role. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any responsibility for the Free Image Search Tool [7] on Meta? Or the ability to contact someone who is responsible? It's currently BROKEN - if there are ANY images in the article at all (such as from cleanup templates, audio version templates or anything else) it refuses to search saying there are already images in the article. I had to temporarily remove all the little images from an article to get it to work. Can you help at all? Exxolon (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. At the time Wikigiraffes was blocked, I was specifically linked to Wikigiraffes - yet I was not then blocked.
2. Since then ( or indeed before) Docmartincohen has not made any controversial edits. Thus there is no new issue to be explored by checkusering anyone.
3. As argued with regard to Dremeraldgibb, this is a shared computer, with several users.
4. Even if there were to be conclusive evidence that say, Wikisquirrels, was Wiigiraffes - users are (established polciy says) allowed to 'reform' - or are you saying that 'once blocked' any new accounts can be blocked too?
5. Multiple accounts are tolerated, or are they not ?
It appears your main problem is you were caught. A handy way not to be caught is to stop attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to grossly slander people. HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this point. Docmartincohen is appealing his block. I'd like to let it be known that I consider the wording of the appeal to be borderline libelous (this is not a threat against Wiki, by the way). Again the insinuation is that I've been involved in inappropriate edits, or that I've been encouraging inapproriate edits of entries that relate to myself, in order to gain publicity, etc. This is completely false. There was never any evidence that it was anything other than false. For example, Anonymous Dissident added cross-references to my work on some philosophy entries: he's a well-established editor here, who had happened to have read my book (I've made contact with him since - I need the evidence for a possible legal action). Thanks. --99.232.75.237 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (Jeremy Stangroom)[reply]
Invite
Century Tower
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
I'm very interested in the XBurst article you created and redirected to ARM architecture. Particularly because XBurst is a MIPS32 chip. More info is available in a recent rant on my user page if you like. My only interest, however, is your reasoning (perhaps some inaccurate sources?). Rcooley (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just saw this. Not sure if it's appropriate to mention on one of the mailing lists (please feel free to do so, if it is). (The zipped download is just the articles in pdf form, plus an rtf intro. Hit-and-miss for me. The book looks amusing though.) Thought you might get a kick out of, if noone else. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Me neither. :-) But the reference desk is the closest we come to "official" discussion threads about the subject of articles. Well, apart from the mailing lists, of course, though the discussion there should be meta-issues. The idea of having a link somewhere down the bottom of an article to "external discussion" is interesting though. Could drive a lot of traffic for those who like to think about that kind of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnie Biggs
I have an image of Ronnie Biggs i would like you to use, i took it at his house in Brazil when i visited him in 2000. I have cropped down an image to 150 x 150 that i currently have much larger. Please let me know if you'll consider using it, here it is Ronnie Biggs—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fz22gq (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could go into more detail as to why you disagree with the AFD? I'm *much* more open to keeping since it passed the other AFD--I saw that it redirected from a deleted page and had very similar content, which is why I put in the AFD--I did not see that it had already survived one. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP block on 61.18.170.232
I use the broadband provider iCable, the dominant cable operator in Hong Kong. The IP you have blocked is one of many IPs assigned dynamically by iCable to their broadband customers. The IP addresses are assigned randomly and dynamically, and seem to change very frequently.
I recently encountered a block that you had put on 61.18.170.232 , as soon as I refreshed the page, it went away.
You may want to have a look at Nixeagle's talk page, where I've brought up the issue with him.
Hello, just wanted to let you know that Mazarin07 has raised the issue of your recent block of him at Wikiquette Alerts here.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that one cannot go re-adding controversial information to a BLP without discussing it on the talk page and reaching a consensus. That said, I have to admit I think it was probably a bad idea for you to do the actual block. Since nobody else had challenged the quality of sourcing, it probably would have been better to have a different admin wield the hammer. Anyway, food for thought at least. Cheers! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xenu 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.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nikkilost.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is not well-founded and shows horrible judgement. ESPECIALLY considering the past history between you and him. I suggest that you gracefully undo it, before it gets taken to AN/ANI and undone for you. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I think the fact that both those accounts are the same person is an open secret. I might even have gone so far as "common knowledge" but maybe I'm mistaken about that. I'm definitely struggling to see how this was an abusive use of multiple accounts? WJBscribe(talk)22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "history" is personal abuse on his part and me catching him out on my part. I have taken it to arbcom, and would suggest others do the same. 24 hours for the sockpuppeteer and indefinite for the sockpuppet is usual - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, you're wrong here. This doesn't need ArbCom. This needs a prompt reversal and for you to realize that your judgement was, and currently IS lacking. SirFozzie (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably if you'd taken it to ArbCom a reasonable time before blocking, FloNight could have responded that there wasn't much secrecy surrounding the identity of that account [8]. These really are dreadful blocks, I urge you to reverse them. File a case with ArbCom if you feel one is justified but you are not an appropriate person to be making decisions about whether Giano should be blocked and you have yet to make a convincing case that there has been any abuse of multiple accounts here. WJBscribe(talk)22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't made any edits since your demand ten minutes earlier that he reverse his judgment. I do not think that there's much of a causal case to be made about his tardiness to act - it's 11:00 at night where he is. People are known to sleep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, did you miss the statement timestamped 22:15? He wasn't going to discuss it and demanded that we take it to ArbCom if we had any problems with it. Well, it's now at ArbCom, although I'm fairly sure it's not in the form he was expecting. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems "multiple" was in fact 3 (counting himself). I suppose even finding 2 to go along with his abuse of power was quite amazing - Anyone know if he has he been fired yet? Giano (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's all sort of blown up, I guess, but please give some thought to just quietly stepping down from your role as a checkuser. I rather feel this bungle has cooked that goose, and it would be the right thing to do, and for the best. Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even as her final hours approached, Mme. de Burgh conducted herself with a poise and dignity could only have mystified, frustrated and confused an enormous boob such as yourself. Imagine tormenting charming old ladies and productive editors when there are genuine miscreants on the loose! I suggest you pack up the toybox and rethink your life. The days of characters of your ilk being taken seriously, even on a largely frivolous website such as this, appear to have expired.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that David Gerard has violated any policies. He found and blocked a disruptive sock. Big deal. It's too bad he didn't so a long time ago as that would have averted this whole drama. Folks who operate socks without disclosing them should expect to get their accounts checkusered. Just like folks who invest in tax shelters shouldn't be surprised when the revenue service audits their tax returns. ·:· Will Beback·:·01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, operating a droll Wikipedia account is just like cheating on your taxes. The similarities are staggering. David Gerard is quite fortunate to have a defender of your calibre at his disposal; until you turned up, I daresay he was starting to look like a bozo. Please edify us with a few more analogies.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charming old ladies? I haven't seen any around here. How about you indicate which policy David Gerard violated that justifies you calling for him to resign the checkuser tools? How about you find the clause in the civility policy that permits calling other editors "boobs"? ·:· Will Beback·:·04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the civility clause you are requesting is clearly laid out here. That's the trouble with rules that "anyone can edit." Any bozo can edit them to suit their agenda. But you and your friends wouldn't know anything about that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, Will, do you honestly think this block was good for the encyclopedia and the community? If so, I rather question your judgment and fitness to be administrators. The purpose of our sockpuppet policies is to forbid deceptive use of alternate accounts. Such an obvious joke account cannot possibly be deceptive. The worst Giano could be accused of would be a joke in bad taste (and not nearly as big a joke in bad taste as the ArbCom itself has been lately, so there you go). If nothing else, the historical fact that blocking Giano always results in more drama and never sticks should have let people know this is going to need discussion, not immediate action. Think about the encyclopedia and the community, not policy. The latter exists for the former. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are unacceptable because an admin who runs a "humorous" sock that "everyone" recognises as satire also creates an excuse for the puerile trolls to run their idea of a humorous sock as "comedy" and maybe even to stand it for ArbCom. Naming lady wotsit as an alternate account wouldn't have hurt the joke, but it would have removed its use as an excuse for real troublemaking. This isn't an excuse for any over-reaction, but equally it's a bit rich to act hurt when Gianowas running a sock that's against literal policy and fell into admin probelms because of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not going to move in untill Jimbo realises that this is an unacceptable way for checkusers to behave. When caught thes people clearly on a fishing trip said they checkusered because they thought it was the evil and banned "Greg Kohs" - if the best lie they can come up with to justify an invasion of privacy is that Alice Reighlly paid for a biography, then we do have some serius problems. We can begin by firing them. Giano (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want checkusers poking around then don't use undisclosed socks to make defamatory edits and to disrupt community elections. This is your own fault. ·:· Will Beback·:·17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you are forgetting your friend Gerard knew 2 years ago and even discussed it on IRC. He is person not to be trusted. I'm afraid this time he has rather cooked his goose, and is now going to have to eat it. Giano (talk)
Gerard isn't my friend. He, like you, is just a colleague. If you weren't running a sock account none of this would have happened. You did not disclose the sock to the community, you used to it make at least one defamatory edit to a BLP, you used it to edit articles that you edited under your main account, you ran it in the ArbCom election, and you repeatedly denied in public that it was a sock. Gerard did the community a favor by putting an edit to that disruptive charade. Secret accounts don't help this project. ·:· Will Beback·:·19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with all of my non-Will colleagues here. If this is how you plan to use your authority in the future, it would be better for the encyclopedia if you gave up your status as a checkuser. Your judgment in this instance was extremely poor, and it's not the first time you've made a substantial mistake of this nature. Please give it some thought. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)22:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't even David that did the primary checkusering in this case, Thatcher and someone else have said they did, so I don't see why people can say he should stop being a CU for something he didn't even do. I mean he might have checkusered G and CdB (I don't know), but so did a couple of others. And I'm glad I know who I might have voted for for Arbcom, after Giano said he wasn't running. I mean, I might have voted for CdB for a laugh and a bit of spoofing of the system, but I still like to know who I'm voting for, maybe that's just me.:) And users who don't get into the political machinations of wiki (a lot of people for whom voting in the Arb elections or at a few RfAs is the totality of their involvement in this side of WP, perhaps) wouldn't know who Giano was, they'd have had no chance of knowing who they were voting for at all without rooting through lots of contribs paranoiacally, which they shouldn't have to do. StickyParkin23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sticky Parkin, I am begining to wonder about you, and have one of my huge gut feelings. Which are never wrong. In this case it has been late, but never too late. Giano (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya DG. I sure wish ya would've told me who the Catherine account was 2yrs ago. I always found that account annoying. Had I'd know it was a sock; I wouldn't have been annoyed about it. Why didn't anybody tell me? I feel so unloved. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you haven't seen it, I have posed a question to you on WP:RfAr in connection with the pending request for arbitration. Please respond when you get back online. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RFAr's gone. But I can happily state here that I will be happy never to take an admin action concerning Giano II again. There's plenty of other admins around - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace as a checkuser.Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... For the time being I have deleted a few revisions, but they are not oversighted yet. If you look at the deleted history of Yttrium, there are some revisions worth oversighting ASAP. Sjakkalle(Check!)14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all David, it is about you abusing your oversight on behalf of a friend who wanted to be an Arb. Your abuse of checkuser was rather yesterdays' news, wasn't it? Yep, the content has gone quite well this month too, thanks for noticing, I'm surprised you have the time to notice anything at all in mainspace these days. Giano (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps David could find some obscure English noble to write about, and whilst he's busy doing that, Giano could answer Wikimedia press enquiries for the Foundation. Huh? After all, both are equally vital to the future of the project. (I speak as one who's paltry quality article work is extremely obscure) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DG, you are friends with JW? Next time ya bump into him, let'em know how grateful I am for his creation (Wikipedia). If I ever meet him in person, I'll give him a Wayne's World salute "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy". GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you mention XFF when talking about censorship. XFF stands for X Forward-for. It's a protocol that proxies use to identify the source of an Internet transaction. This helps Web 2.0 sites have the ability to identify users by IP address and block those who are disruptive. As things stand now, if any user in the UK gets blocked, the autoblock will prevent a huge swath of the UK from editing. This is an enourmous, unnecessary problem. The UK net nannies are not using XFF. JehochmanTalk23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"URL", let alone "IP address", counts as technical for these people, unfortunately. I'm sticking to the issue that they're blocking people from even talking about the record cover - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Redvers. A rather short interview. I didn't know they sold the record with the original cover on the highstreet (not that I would buy it). You would think if it was against UK law the authorities would have pulled the records from the stores. For the record, I don't think it belongs on wiki, but we can't have laws for one medium and one for another. It will be interesting too see whether or not they ban the image on the Amazon website. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said - "we think means that Amazon had money and would sue them, whereas we are an educational charity". I think that's totally wrong. Amazon would not be so bloody stupid as to sue, even if they would win. Amazon would not want to go down as the organisation that went ballistic in defence of a right to show crass images of naked children. Not really a headline that family-friendly Amazon's PR department would want, very bad for business. Associating yourself with alleged kiddie porn is NOT the way to get friends and influence (and make money) in the UK. Amazon are unprincipled pragmatists concerned with image and income rather than being an anti-censorship lobby. The WMF, on the other hand, seems to have the virtue of being willing to sacrifice its image, reputation and donor income to fight this good fight. Bring it on?--Scott Mac (Doc)10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know if people think not having the image would damage the article? I'm against most censorship, but in my opinion this image has gone too far. Was there not a new cover made for the record which could be used? Titch Tucker (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering a chunk of the article talks specifically about the cover, and the cover is inarguably noteworthy (it appears so frequently on "worst cover of all time" lists), I'd say "of course it would be damaging to remove it" - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its clearly notable and its clearly (along with the title) on the borderline of child pornography. Its not a matter of it being banned or not, its a question of prosecution for the DPP and I think they would have a case in law, although pragmatically it might make sense to leave it. Whatever its not a modern equivalent of Oz, not only in image but in the modern day context. Given wider issues within Wikipedia on child pornography my inclination would be to remove it, or if it stays reduce the image quality so its there to provide context but the Wikipedia is not then a means to distribute a pornographic image. --SnowdedTALK11:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I don't think the image should be there, but if it is not going to be removed I go along with Snowded's idea of reducing the image quality ie: blurring the photograph. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is censored, its one of the functions of admins to remove copyright material, personal attacks etc and outright pornography has been removed. Like most human systems the question is not the presence of absence of boundaries, but where the boundaries are drawn. This is an image too far. good to have the transcript however, good material for today's blog. --SnowdedTALK12:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it's difficult to ever have a balanced debate about "censorship", the cases you cite for WP are often regarded as not censorship. This is because they have no "censor", a person or persons who decide each case on its subjective merits. WP's "censorship" is objective, mechanical and pro forma: images with rights issues or unclear rights issues must go because we have a prior policy that applies to all and was in place before considering that specific image. There's no "opinion" or "judgement" of the censor to consider, these rules are as mechanical as we can make them. Similarly for "personal attacks", although we now have a harder problem on judging "attack" vs. "banter" vs. "informality". "outright pornography" is particularly problematic (I don't know WP policy here) as there's an obvious strong desire to not be an image host for porn, yet we do have plenty of images that many subjective censors would class as "pornographic".
None of these classes of image, as I describe here, are permitted on WP, but this is still a long way from "censorship" as would see itself as wanting the VK image removed. (PS - good interview David) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I'm not your biggest fan, but I still want to thank you for doing those interviews with the media on Monday. You argued well, you got the key facts across and you put a presentable face forward for wikipedians. Thanks! Kyz (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, but we also don't write articles on people whose only notable actions have been acting as a spokesbeing (see wikimediauk-l for my reasons for not using a more standard term!). At most David should get a mention in Wikipedia. And a pint. --Tango (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he's entitled to five days on afd where we can pillory him as a non-entity ;) Indeed perhaps all wikipedians (and certainly all media spokesentities) should be given that experience so they can empathise with other victims.--Scott Mac (Doc)14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised we have an article on it at all... last time a checked, Wikinews was our project for news articles. Why do we have an encyclopaedia article about a fairly minor news story that lasted a couple of days? It should be a section in either Wikipedia or Internet Watch Foundation (or both), that's all. --Tango (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think an earlier draft of Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia did mention you but I can't find it from a quick scan of the history. Also, I agree that David is not yet notable. None of the sources about him and they merely mention him in the context of being the spokesperson. None are about him or give any details about his life or anything like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, lighten up. No one is seriously suggesting otherwise. David is still safe in his obscurity. (Unless the Scorpions regroup and need him for a cover ;) )--Scott Mac (Doc)17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for that I'm voting to delete the article. And calling for your resignation as an admin. Every sane person knows that CC liscences are the wave of the future. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up now. Suburbia frequently resembles a yoyo, but this is a matter of infrastructure functionality rather than legal attacks. I tend to assume the copy on Suburbia will be up forever - thirteen years' attacks from the CoS haven't taken it down, because Suburbia have balls of depleted uranium. As well as founder Mark Dorset, particular thanks for standing up against such attacks go to Julian Assange, co-admin, who is now somewhat more famous as a co-founder and editor on Wikileaks, where he gets to have everyone else annoyed at him too - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the somewhat abrupt message last time; my internet was just about to go away :) Yes, Knuth says it's Hoare's in 1989, but this is probably mistaken, for two reasons:
When Knuth said it (twice) in 1974, he did not cite Hoare, even though he cited Hoare quite a bit in the rest of the same paper.
Hi David,
this block is currently being discussed at AN/I, where consensus seems to be that this was a highly improper block. Since you're somewhat familiar with the issue, you might like to have your say. Actually, I'd be glad if you did because I still have no idea what was so offensive about CH's behaviour and Phil Sandifer doesn't seem interested in justifying his actions. Cheers, ReykYO!22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That no admin in the 23 hours the unblock notice was up (and many patrol those and would have seen it) saw fit to undo the block suggests it was not a bad block in practice. I don't expect Crotalus to agree, but not one admin in that time? - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now recently twice reverted a reversion of yours where the only reason given by you for your reversion is that the editor you are reverting has a conflict of interest. That is not a valid reason for reversion. Please desist. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account the reason you gave for the reversions one is led to ask if you looked at the edits. But even if what you say is correct (and it isn't for one of the edits in question) the point remains: The reason for a reversion of an editor's work cannot be a real or perceived conflict of interest. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
