User talk:David Gerard/archive 9

Ministry of Plausibility

So you're the one who altered the "official" history of wikipedia. How does it feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.48.48 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[feelsgoodman.jpg] - David Gerard (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Blue Beam

Thanks for catching my mistaken speedy delete nomination there. It sounded so far out that I didn't do my usual Google search just to make sure. Lesson learned, First Light (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) It's popular with conspiracy buffs and theorists, but not found in tremendously good sources ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super-injunctions

Hi David. I'm contacting you because you're an experienced Wikipedian who I believe is interested in freedom of speech issues. I've raised the matter of super-injunctions issued in England and Wales, which I rather suspect are not binding on the Floridian-hosted Wikipedia, on the administrators' noticeboard (and elsewhere, see my recent contributions). I was prompted to do this by what looked to me (though I have somewhat limited knowledge of Wikipedia's internal operations) like misuse of oversight on articles which I suppose I'm better off not naming. I am not much bothered about the celebrity sex scandal stuff: it's the possibility that this is the tip of the iceberg that bothers me, with all kinds of dodgy corporate dealings we don't even know about kept out of Wikipedia because of a misplaced fear of legal action. I wonder if you'd have anything interesting to say about the matter. I think Wikipedians beyond the reach of injunction-issuing courts should be proactive in adding suppressed information of encyclopaedic relevance to articles, subject to all the usual requirements about sourcing of course (the internet and the foreign press should come in handy for any Trafigura-scale affairs we haven't heard reported in the Valley of the Clueless). Thanks. Terminal emulator (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I have been at the sharp end of legal threats over online materials. I would say that for a UK-based editor to post such stuff would be insane, but as to what's safe on editors outside the UK courts' jurisdiction, that's up to them. I'm not sure I'd start a concerted programme to add the material - that's pretty clearly outside the BLP rules and spirit, unless the material is actually notable stuff already (though Trafigura can, IMO, fuck off). And in general, we're not an investigative journalism site (that's Wikinews). But I don't see a reason for a UK superinjunction to keep highly verifiable and noteworthy information from being added to a non-UK site by non-UK editors. If I weren't based in the UK I wouldn't feel constrained personally. But note that I am the sort of person who cocks a snook at Scientology for fun - your mileage may vary - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Indeed it would be insane for a UK-based editor to go outing people kept anonymous by injunctions issued by UK courts. And I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should engage in investigative journalism, only that we document what is already out there in reliable sources where it is possible to do so under Florida and US federal law. There was some discussion about all this last night on the administrators' noticeboard which seems to have ground to a halt inconclusively. I felt that certain issues were being conflated and wondered if you might weigh in. It appears quite possible that in the two recent cases, no one is able to find reliable sources, and so some assumed I was just trying to get unsourced material that would be problematic under the BLP policy in under the radar, or wanted to turn Wikipedia into a gossip sheet. Oh well, something to bear in mind anyway when the next Trafigura scandal blows up. Terminal emulator (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bridge Publications (software) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge Publications (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Publications (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews article on superinjunctions

I know you say above you're not officially a lawyer, but I was wondering if I could run you by a Wikinews article myself and another user wrote about the MP revealing Giggs' identity, and was hoping you could check it over and advise back as to whether it is legally appropriate and accurate to publish. Thanks, wackywace 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have to be approximately insane to comment too closely on the matter ;-) My favourite comment is this NewsThump article - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your comments pointing out the ad hominem attacks by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) against me (seen from this listing). It is most appreciated. ;) I hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who writes on anything vaguely associable with gay porn is EVIL AND WRONG. Oh wait - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and thank you for replying to Jayen466 (talk · contribs) and pointing that out, it really makes it more obvious what is truly going on here. :( -- Cirt (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikien-l is not for taking seriously. It is for thinking about issues (having a lot of old-timers makes it invaluable for this), but definitely not for making decisions - that is strictly for the wiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it seems to be a place where a certain individual wishes to feel free to make ad hominem attacks against me. -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:Political neologisms, Template talk:Sexual slang, wikien-l ... the forum-shopping is obvious - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I thought that WP:Forum shopping was against policy? -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more clear at Template_talk:Political_neologisms#Propose_removing_the_term_Santorum. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The UNIX-HATERS Handbook

The article The UNIX-HATERS Handbook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK hard.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Wolfgang Press

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Moon

Due to your recent activity editing The Dark Side of the Moon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking just a minute to add your opinion to the discussion at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned?. Thank you, Dismas|(talk) 01:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfAR

Note that I have mentioned your name here. If the rumours about your spreading rumours are false, then you have my apologies in advance. On the other hand, if they are true, then I would welcome your response. Cheers, --JN466 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt: [1]. Cheers, --JN466 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name mentioned on Jimbo's talk page

Here. Please feel free to comment or add further information if you like. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, was it Jimbo who told you to block that community in Utah, or was it your idea? Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On martinis

Dude, vodka AND gin? It's one or the other, son. --69.115.177.139 (talk)

I suggest the proof of the martini is in the drinking - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The system will not let me upload a photo I own of Dave Sheridan, cartoonist which is missing from his bio. Please, what must I do? I uploaded the photo on flickr: http://flickr.com/gp/michelk/6QcZwg Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintaka3 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Thomas Crapper.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Thomas Crapper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of UWM (computing)

The article UWM (computing) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not esteblished.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Redirected to the historical one - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert entry Thomas Shanks

I wonder why you reverted the entry for author Thomas Shanks. It was certainly not a vanity entry. Shanks is a relevant editor of two important books on timezone history. That a recent lawsuit against tzdata involves those books rather adds to his relevance. I suggest you undo the deletion. JulDes (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of XScreenSaver for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XScreenSaver is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XScreenSaver until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey picture

What an historic moment! :) Good job on the Mickey picture, I think it's a lot better, even though I still like the old one. This will be fine I think. I'm curious though if you know who came up with the picture. I'm wondering now if there's a similar free equivalent for Donald Duck. I feel like he was used to sell war bonds a lot more than Mickey was. Nothing's turned up yet though I guess. Pigby (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons deletion discussion is interesting. Seems Disney slipped up and failed to renew this image - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello David Gerard/archive 9! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

HeadleyDown has returned to NeuroLinguisticProgramming

Now under the usernames Snowded and Lam Kin Keung

Note the typical behavior we've seen before at Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.106.37 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this overwhelming urge to spork my eyes out rather than go look - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand 76.243.106.37 (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Replace this image female.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Replace this image female.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Varnent (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Commons duplicate - well spotted! I've zapped it - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - there is a problem here. On the page with that image there was also some nicely formatted text which directed new users to upload a picture. I would like that recovered so that I could incorporate it into the page of the file which is to remain. Could you undelete that and give me access to it, or otherwise userfy it for me? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what I am seeing here. Here is a related file - the male version. You can see that it has lots of instructions which you deleted from the female version. What is the proper repository for instructions like this? I feel like they should be on the Wikipedia (not Commons) image page for English speakers. I am willing to spend time figuring this out, but I though you perhaps knew more about the precedent for how this has historically been done. Do you know anything about this? What is the right way to retain this information? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was in the text of the en:wp page. Similar text should be put onto the Commons copy of the image, so that people who click on it should see it - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Submission for File:Replace_this_image_male.svg

I would like to upload a photo for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Angelstad that has the file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Replace_this_image_male.svg as the picture. I need your permission to upload a photo. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmainehyatt (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experience

"We have plenty of experience in dealing with people who try to spin Wikipedia - after a while it becomes really obvious."

This... kind of grates a bit. Varkala much? "really obvious" back then was "when we couldn't avoid the issue anymore" because too much evidence was being shoved face-ward.

After a previous article/event comment, someone said something to the effect that quotes to the press need to be lacking, as too much substance can create a story. In these Olympian times, this intention can certainly seem more palliation than information, yes? 24.28.17.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Press quotes may resemble words actually said by the person they're attributed to, in some circumstances. (This is then called "reliable", while the person's own words are called "COI".) That was a 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I mention you in this discussion. You may wish to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And evidently did so without reading the comment above yours on this very page - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, that was quite unwarranted arsiness and I apologise. For general interest, the link above now more or less explains how press is done around Wikimedia (in a wikilike and ad-hoc fashion) - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What A Young Boy Ought To Know

A tag has been placed on What A Young Boy Ought To Know, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a circular redirect to itself.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d'oh! Redirected where I meant to point it. Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops?

I note you correcting your own statement here; however, you also seem to have removed someone else's statement. I'm assuming this was accidental? Risker (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops, indeed, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to WikiProjects on Wikipedia page

Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another.Rockin291 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]