User talk:GDonato/Archive06


Thanks

The semi-protect for Talk:Bengalia is appreciated, though I can guarantee you will need to keep reinstating it in perpetuity; this is an editor who has NOTHING ELSE to do in his life but produce rants, be they in his own privately-printed "scientific journal" or to WP. He will never, ever stop trying to post here, and cannot be reasoned with. He sends me nasty e-mails every day, too. I'm betting it's less than a week before he starts up again either on this talk page, or elsewhere. I hope you won't mind if I come back to you when that happens. I apologize in advance. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do come back if the trouble starts again; the protection was (I think accidentally) shortened to the 2nd so I've put it back to the 19th of February as it was. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
He's moved to another talk page, one of the three he posts to: Talk:Blow-fly. If that one is blocked, he will certainly move elsewhere (probably Talk:Cluster fly is next on his list) - like I said, he has nothing else to do. This game of "whack-a-mole" will go on indefinitely, I'm afraid. Dyanega (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Food Safety Promotion Board

Hi G Donato, Yesterday you deleted the page I created on SafeFood. As I mentioned in my hang on, the problem with it is its functions are described by law, (the British Irish Agreement Act 1999). This makes it difficult to have a wiki page about SafeFood that does not mention what it is legally required to do, since repeating its legal functions apparently violate your copyright rules. How do you overcome this with other wiki pages that mention state bodies? I notice for example for the page for the BBC it copies word for word the BBC's Charter in relation to the definition of public services, but if this is the case how does it not fall foul of crown or BBC copyright? I think it is important in cases such as government agencies and bodies to state their functions as described by law and not in some interpreted form, which in this case is being forced up the SafeFood article because they mention their legal duties/functions on their website. How can this be best overcome while staying within wikirules? A complete extract/quote from the Act (which again of course would have the exact wording of the SafeFood page since it is the Act that SafeFood are quoting in the first place)? Your direction in this matter would be helpful. Rgds CP Harkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac h (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The easiest solution to that problem is probably to explicitly state that you are quoting from the site. You could possibly use a <blockquote>:
something like this[1]

to solve the problem. Make sure you include the source :) Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ With the source here

Banknotes

Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bank_Of_England10.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bank_Of_England20.gif and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pound_sterling_banknotes_fan.png should be deleted until permission is granted by the Bank of England to use these images. They have granted permission to use them in the past, so they probably will grant it again, and I could apply for it myself, however until then hosting the images is a violation of forgery law, specifically section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act says "it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote", that leaves no room to interpretation so you don't need to be a lawyer and there is no exception for banknotes that have "specimen" on them, in each and every case written permission from the bank is needed. As I've said, if some administrator could remove those images I will am willing to apply for permission from the Bank myself, upload the images to wikipedia and renew the permission to use the images on wikipedia every 12 months (which is the normal duration the Bank allows before you have to apply again). I think all the points I'm making here are fair and reasonable and I look forward to your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.236 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely that can't apply to US servers when it is a UK law and fair use exists in America? GDonato (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To add $0.02 - WP:Perennial proposals#Legal issues might be worth a read. You are not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, IP is not a lawyer; but the foundation employs someone who is a lawyer and will be perfectly capable of dealing with this problem if it is in fact a problem. Note that if this is a breach of the relevant law for which the Foundation can be prosecuted, merely deleting the image will not suffice - it is still visible to administrators. If this is a genuine problem the solution will certainly require oversight, which is far beyond the scope of CSD. Happy‑melon 21:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct regarding the legal stuff. To the IP: If you believe something Wikimedia is doing is contrary to law, there is nothing I can do. You can bring it to the attention of Wikimedia by e-mailing info-en-o AT wikimedia DOT org. To Happy-melon: you are mostly correct, however, admin-only is usually deemed enough for copyright infringement and I suspect this would be the same were it to be true. GDonato (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that genuine violations of that Forgery and Counterfeiting act would entail rather harsher punishments, and require more comprehensive levels of damage control, than a simple copyright infringement. But as you say, it's not something that can be dealt with at this level. Happy‑melon 14:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding image "Ernasiikvarta.jpg ("Original location?" )

The history of Erna Siikavirta shows the image was originally located at Image:Ernalive-1.jpg. It went through the seven-day period with no action from the uploader (despite notices), and was subsequently deleted (I believe yesterday, if not before). Nazzzz re-uploaded the image under a new name, but failed to solve the problems that led to its deletion in the first place. If you take a look at Nazzzz's image contributions and the notices on their talk page, the user seems to have a habit of uploading images without adding the necessary copyright and fair use information. --HamatoKameko (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, it seems another admin has deleted the image. I have also left the uploader a warning so if he continues to upload images inappropriately, please come back and tell me. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Had to remove the image link as it suddenly burst into a fullsize photo; Nazzzz has reuploaded it. Rather than retype the same thing, here's a copy/paste of my most recent response to my ongoing conversation with Blood Red Sandman on his talk page:
"Oh, geez, Nazzzz is at it again. He's uploaded the photo of Erna to the original location, added an invalid license (the photo is directly from Deathlike Silence's website) and reinserted it into the article. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, and removed it from the article (again). If Nazzzz is aware of his talk page, he must be deliberately ignoring it. As GDonato gave a final warning for the second upload of the image, and this is now the third, I believe a block may be in order." --HamatoKameko (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice the user has been blocked, a sad result, really, GDonato (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, but on the other hand, when a user refuses to communicate with other users, there's only so much you can do. Maybe this will get his/her attention. --HamatoKameko (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Regarding your declined speed [1], the author is the alleged owner of the site, alexa rank doesn't establish notability and its clear vanity.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD is in progress and is heading to delete (probably the right decision) It wasn't good enough for speedy although I think it will be saying goodbye in less than a week's time anyway so don't worry :) GDonato (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

More AzLehrer sockpuppet activity

Hi. In the last few days, this editor has started to try to delete all mention of the sockpupptery case against him. See the edits performed here[2] and here[3]. If you could, please consider putting up a block on the "89.1.xx.xxx" domain, or at least sprotecting Bengalia, Blow-fly, and Cluster fly plus their talk pages for at LEAST a two-month interval (which, I guarantee, will have to be renewed indefinitely; this editor is retired, and his only occupation is to attack the scientific community in retaliation for rejecting his life's work on Bengalia - he publishes his own private journal full of personal attacks, and is trying to use Wikipedia to do the same thing). This editor is like The Terminator - he WILL NOT STOP. He simply logs in from a different 89.1.xx.xxx address every day, and makes the same edits over and over and over. Surely there must be a way to stop this abuse. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I am familiar with this case, if I should be, please tell me. Putting a block on the whole range is not an option due to its size and article protection will not be possible as it is not one particular article that is the target. Have you tried WP:ANI? GDonato (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You were involved, but you've removed the archived discussion. The case history is here. Here's the last edit:

The semi-protect for Talk:Bengalia is appreciated, though I can guarantee you will need to keep reinstating it in perpetuity; this is an editor who has NOTHING ELSE to do in his life but produce rants, be they in his own privately-printed "scientific journal" or to WP. He will never, ever stop trying to post here, and cannot be reasoned with. He sends me nasty e-mails every day, too. I'm betting it's less than a week before he starts up again either on this talk page, or elsewhere. I hope you won't mind if I come back to you when that happens. I apologize in advance. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do come back if the trouble starts again; the protection was (I think accidentally) shortened to the 2nd so I've put it back to the 19th of February as it was. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
He's moved to another talk page, one of the three he posts to: Talk:Blow-fly. If that one is blocked, he will certainly move elsewhere (probably Talk:Cluster fly is next on his list) - like I said, he has nothing else to do. This game of "whack-a-mole" will go on indefinitely, I'm afraid. Dyanega (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only three articles that he edits. He has absolutely no interest in any other articles. If his range cannot be blocked, then all three articles and their talk pages need to be sprotected indefinitely. He has privately communicated to me via e-mail that he will NOT stop as long as he is alive (I believe he's in his late 60's or early 70's), and he refuses to believe me when I tell him that Wikipedia actually has official policies prohibiting his behavior. Folks at WP:ANI are generally unwilling to put indefinite sprotects in place, I thought that you had been exposed to enough to realize that this editor is outside of the normal boundary of behavior, and might be willing to take the necessary steps. What else can one do when faced with such an editor? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course, I didn't recognise it right away in the rush I was in. Protectiing three articles (and their talk pages?) is somewhat drastic for one person- one page, yes, six, I'd prefer not to. Saying that, it can be done but WP:RBI could be useful advice. Allow me to look a little further, GDonato (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, blocking is not an option due to the range but page protection might be, although not indefinite. Would it be easier to just revert? GDonato (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Reverting would have to be done every day, year in and year out. And every revert makes him more and more convinced and angry that he is being "censored" because people disagree with him - like I said, he does not even acknowledge that WP has rules, nor that he has been banned because he violated (and continues to violate) those rules; reverting just reinforces his paranoia because it makes it seem deliberate and personal. It also forces other people to spend time and effort reverting him incessantly. These are small, relatively obscure articles (at least Bengalia and Cluster fly), and sprotecting won't interfere with what little useful editing they receive. It's a WP:OWN issue, for the most part, with one editor determined that the pages in question should reflect HIS self-published opinion and no one else's, because he believes the scientific community is conspiring to silence him. The policy outlined at WP:RBI will be completely ineffective against this editor, because he has already stated that he will never give up; reverting only makes him more determined to become increasingly polemic in his diatribes. You have already stated that he cannot be blocked at his source, and his disruptive and abusive talk page missives certainly cannot be ignored. If anywhere, WP:LTA is where this case belongs. Again, I can't imagine any approach other than sprotecting the articles that can give any respite from him. It's like having a person who self-publishes books on the Loch Ness Monster editing the article anonymously every single day so the article indicates not only that the monster is real (with links to his books and no one else's), but that other Wikipedia editors are conspiring to silence him, after his books have proven them all wrong, and himself correct. That's a very precise analogy, in fact, except that the topic here is an obscure group of flies, rather than something more notable. But just because it's an obscure trio of articles doesn't make his recalcitrance any less a violation of WP policy. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
A brief follow-up: since I sent the above message I have gotten neither personal e-mails from Mr. Lehrer, nor do I see any sign of him in WP. I won't get my hopes up about him being gone for good - he seemed far too angry to simply give up, especially since he threatened that he never would - but I've got those pages on my watchlist, and when he reappears, we'll have to reassess the situation. Thanks for your patience. Dyanega (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting on something else happening myself; please come back if he does and I can reassess the situation, does he usually have long-ish periods of inactivity? GDonato (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess that depends on your definition of "longish". Part of the problem is that initially no one was removing his postings, because (1) no one was reading the talk pages he was posting to, and (2) it wasn't immediately obvious that he was posting from multiple accounts. I did find out from Tel Aviv University, where he claims to be affiliated, that he has not had any official connection to TAU since 2001, so he is fraudulently representing himself as a staff member of the institution. Quite ironic that the primary accusations in his rants are that his enemies are "frauds" and "impostors". I rue the day I came across him here, and can barely comprehend his actions. Dyanega (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:72.75.72.63#Talk page messages

Hello, GDonato ...

I apologize for the actions of my evil twin ... I guess I thought it would be a Good Idea to try out my new {{Oldprodfull}} on articles listed in Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed (seconded PRODs) ... I selected articles at random, tagged the talk pages, and WP:CANVASed the editors involved ... some of them have already been deleted (or would be Real Soon Now when the PROD expired), so the "reference" article I pointed to in the messages may have been about a subject in which the editor has no particular interest ... My Bad!

For further testing, I'll just flag the talk pages, but won't "ping" the editors ... if it's on their Watchlists, that should be sufficient to get their attention, and hopefully they will respond if interested. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. An editor had expressed a concern and I did concur with them that it was unnecessary to continue to post on so many user talk pages. Happy editing and good luck with the template, GDonato (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:CornerstoneFestival2007 mainstage.jpg

Please explain what license issues are present. The original source was flickr, it is credited correctly on commons, while it is not mentioned on your local copy. Codeispoetry (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the clarification, I checked the image on flickr. I wonder why he didn't have the local copy properly tagged. Image licensing must be 100% certain before the file can be deleted. GDonato (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm doing NowCommons work on de, It's a pain in the ass ;-) Well, somehow I like it. Keep up your work! Codeispoetry (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Christina Album Speedy Delete explanation

I am nominating this for speedy delete because it is a re-creation of New Christina Milian album, also by this user, which was deleted as the result of an AfD. If this is still inappropriate, please remove the tag and let me know. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Now deleted. GDonato (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks - sorry I didn't get the explanation up quickly enough Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No problems, GDonato (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Unrequest

I accidentally requested the following page to be deleted:

Please undelete it.

The Transhumanist    08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done GDonato (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alex Salmond.jpg

That assertion simply comes from selecting the one legit upload option on this page. You will note that say Image:Albus, Jim in 2001.jpg makes exactly the same assertion but if you see the uploader's talk page it isn't true. Due the the way the assertion is made it is largely valueless as an assertion that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder.Genisock2 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The upload form in question states own work only. Therefore, the usage of the form means the uploader is the copyright holder (unless they lie). Instructions are also provided for other options. In the meantime I think we have to WP:AGF that uploader is the copyright holder, I do not believe WP:PUI applies. GDonato (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what the form states people lie. In particular they lie to machines. A lot of experience teaches us that staments made through that upload form alone cannot be trusted (AGF is not a suicide pact) so unless there is other evidence suggesting that the image is self authored we cannot assume they are. The shear number that come through with viewimages and similar watermarks on them should be enough to make that clear.Genisock2 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but most of these cases are inconclusive. Short of asking them to take a picture of themselves taking the picture... ;) No doubt people lie but there is no easy way to prove authorship and we can not delete all images where we are less than 100% sure of the author, there'd be no free ones left! :) GDonato (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There are various methods to be more conclusive. For example people may be happy to lie to computers but they will be less happy about lying to you and me. IF we can contact the unloader and they confirm authorship that is generally enough to be reasonably sure.Genisock2 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, I've sent an e-mail, GDonato (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No response, I can't see any other option than AGF if the uploader is uncontactable. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Football box start

Hi there - you made an edit to Template:Football box start, but forgot some <noinclude>-tags around the template documentation (or somethin else happened), causing articles using the articles using this template looking like this: Example. Please fix this, thanks /AB-me (chit-chat) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, user unblocks you?

User:In Soviet Union, page watches YOU! would like to be unblocked. Since you blocked him, I figured I'd let you do the talking. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Username hard block?

I was just wondering why you username hard-blocked In Soviet Union, page watches YOU! (talk · contribs). The username doesn't seem to be offensive or abusive. bibliomaniac15 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly clear from the username that this was a sockpuppet. [4] Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar from Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) moved to awards page.

What? *blinks* Wow, a not-complaint :O Thanks very much, :) GDonato (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Jimbo Wales

I agree there is no pressing need for anyone to edit that page. However, it doesn't look good for Jimbo's page (as founder, chair emeritus, etc.) to be protected. Jimbo has also specifically encouraged people to edit the page. I think the benefits of unprotection far outweigh the negatives at the moment. If the vandal pops up again, the page can simply be re-protected. KnightLago (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection (also the expiry used on the talk page),  Done GDonato (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my talk page, sir. Thank you for contacting me.ToddLara (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Protectathon

Barnstar from Sceptre (talk · contribs) moved to awards page.

Heh, at least it helped my WP:ADMINSTATS ;) Thanks, GDonato (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Smith's (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I understand it has been sorted out, GDonato (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Here's a barnstar for improving Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! The Helpful One (Review) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, 3 in a week! I must be doing something right :) Thanks a lot, GDonato (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 10 3 March 2008 About the Signpost
Bureaucratship candidacies
Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Domas Mituzas interview
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

bidding war

who are you? read what was typed on the page. What was typed was racist and meant to be derogatory towards white males. So I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informatron (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Why

are you getting in the middle of our private conversation? Do you think you are better than us? --Damifb (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated that you planned to ruin the site. Comments on talk pages are for improving, not destroying, Wikipedia. GDonato (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi

I was wondering what wiki policy you felt you were enforcing by removing this comment? [[5]]Hohohahaha (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of blocked users are temporary and as such the comment would have been removed in due course anyway. Try Special:Emailuser/RachelMarsden to contact her, perhaps? GDonato (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you- you're right I have seen blocked pages wiped before. Thanks.
Great suggestion, I emailed her. Hohohahaha (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish she would...

Re this: [6] I wish she would, but she'll probably appeal to gossip sites and tech press instead! The past suggests this, anyway. Happy editing, daveh4h 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy editing to you too, GDonato (talk)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stay off my profile page - from cbean

Hello.

Do NOT visit my personal profile page & make bolded statements & threats.

Look, here's how the dailymotion image situation went.

I did a screen capture.

A screen capture is fair use.

I posted the screen capture.

The screen capture was a reference point and it backed up and documented the claims I made on the dailymotion page. The fair use images backed and and verified that the changes I made were valid and worth keeping.

Now, if someone disputes my changes to the dialymotion page were inaccurate, I can point to the images. But you, in bad faith apparently, try & delete the images, then I have nothing to back up my claim.

This whole web site, wikipedia, is operated in an arcane and stupid way. But the bottom line message for you is this: MY IMAGES WERE NOT DISRUPTIVE. But I can be disruptive if you want. My images were fair use and I stated this. So keep off my profile page with your bolded statements & threats. They will be deleted & they will be ignored.

You are one of the people here sucking energy out of good people who're trying to contribute. You're not welcome on my profile page & any comments made by you there will be deleted.

I've only got one life to live. And it will not be without you & similar people who go around with nothing better to do than threaten people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbean (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Cream (talk) has put a trout your back! The Trout promotes playfulness and hopefully this one has made your day worse. You have no choice but to spread it to other editors! Happy April Fools' Day!
Add this {{subst:AprilFoools}} to their talk page with a friendly fish.

User:AkhtaBot

Erm, why are you reverting all of the recent edits by this bot? I would hate to think it's because of some bigoted attitude towards the Arabic language. – PeeJay 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the bot was adding interwiki links to templates, causing those links to be transcluded on any page the template was transcluded on. So the link to [[ar:Template:Electromagnetism]] on Template:Electromagnetism would also appear on the actual Electromagnetism article. Furthermore, it was probably unauthorised anyway. GDonato (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I notice that you decided to re-revert me with the edit summary "rvv". Please revert those edits and WP:AGF. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the ones I reverted were included within noinclude tags, so they would not have affected the pages they were transcluded onto. – PeeJay 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, please reply on my talk page in the future. Thanks. – PeeJay 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To summarise, I will not be reverting my reverts, but I will apologise for not assuming good faith. :) – PeeJay 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, feel free to revert the ones in <noinclude>. You understand that I did not check every one of its >1000 edits. Generally, I like to continue a thread where it was started. Have a good day, GDonato (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article on PGF

Hey Donato,

You deleted an article I wrote a small amount on a while back about the Portable Graphics Format. I'm not necessarily contesting the deletion, but I wouldn't mind seeing what I posted so I can either (a) write some more so you keep it up, or (b) learn from my mistake and not do so again. I've kind of forgotten what I wrote.

Cheers, Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspr81 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was quite a difficult decision; almost declined the deletion request but essentially the article was missing the main point in the notability guideline which is coverage in independent sources (i.e. include some external links which verify the information you gave and show that the subject of the article is notable). This was the content of the article:
 =Portable Graphics Format=
 From the description of PGF from the main developer site:

 <blockquote>
 PGF is a TeX macro package for generating graphics. It is platform- and format-independent and works together with the mostimportant TeX backend drivers, including pdftex and dvips. It comes with a user-friedly syntax layer called TikZ.
 </blockquote>

 == External links ==
 [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgf/ SourceForce: PGF and TikZ -- Graphic systems for TeX]
Note the only external link is one to the project itself, no independent links. A Google search may help find these. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll fix that up at some stage. — W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspr81 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2

Hi - just to let you know that following the renamings you carried out, I've protected the redirect remaining at {{GFDL 1.2}}, as it's still in high usage. It may be a violation of WP:BEANS, but better safe than sorry! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to check later, GDonato (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)