Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:23, 23 May 2007

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than the English Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 3 (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 4 (1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2006)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to WP:RFCU unless you're letting me know about a particular problem we've been tracking, in which case I look here far more often.

At present, I am attempting to write and add "content" to those "article" things which are apparently there for "readers," rather than doing a lot of Misplaced Pages admin work. And doing Foundation press. My phone appears to be their phone ...

American Values Club

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

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

MediaWiki:Copyright

Hi, you inserted a HTML error:

your code:

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

correct code:

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

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

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

Oversight

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

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

London meetup

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

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

I mentioned it on wikien-l and wikimediauk-l. I'll probably mention it there again and drop you a note. Not sure where else one would announce one ... UK notice board perhaps - David Gerard 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting them to be announced on Misplaced Pages:Meetup/London or Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/London, since not every Wikipedian subscribes to the mailing list. —Psychonaut 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'll be sure to note this one there as it'll be the "proper" one (i.e., probably a lot like last night with added Jimbo) - David Gerard 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I love the links on your userpage to upset users describing you. You're clearly doing something right - David Gerard 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the update David. Unfortunately I was not able to attend yesterday as I was stuck teaching a bunch of Fortran programmers how to deal with XML... Hope you (all) had fun. Andreww 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something for the next update of the Geneva Convention - David Gerard 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Able and Baker on deletion review

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

West Orange

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

That's why it's a wiki, and this is a perfect example of why anon editing is a good thing :-) - David Gerard 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

and I've re-established the redirect now to West Orange (disambiguation). I feel it's a better place to have the list. I hope you and 68.162.16.52 don't mind. Orel Puppington 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

KDE is not ferret-compatible

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

Lembit Opik photo

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

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

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

Commons and reuse of GPL/LGPL contents

Hello David,

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

Cheryl Cole

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

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

Marti Pellow

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

#wikipedia-en-admins

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

Looks like Interiot has taken care of it, so no worries. ···日本穣 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcginnly's block

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

Um, dude. Setting up three editors and making a fake content dispute between them? Misplaced Pages is not an RPG - David Gerard 11:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people beg to differ... Carcharoth 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have mail. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't I know you from somewhere...

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

Help needed with posting to wikitech-l

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

Thank you!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Random smiley

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

Checkuser

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

Err, I don't think Kelly is talking about putative CheckUser results here, but rather reasons for doing the check in the first place:

• "multiple accounts": Giano + Giano II
• "possibly been subjected to impersonation": Giano II (who could, in theory, have been someone trying to impersonate you, rather than a new account)

(Which is, I think, an entirely silly way of summarizing the situation; but it's not actually wrong in its factual aspects.) Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That it explains it then - fine. Obviously a misunderstanding in my part. Apologies David for dobting your dicretion. Giano 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. It was after you posted those messages that looked to me like declaration of intent to trash the place and made me go "WHAT ON EARTH" and block you. Then Bishonen and I had a long talk and she got across to me that you were 0% likely to do any such thing, and I went to unblock you and someone else had already. I ran the check (and said on the thread in ANI that I had, I think), but revealing results is quite another matter. I wrote the bit of policy on what to reveal from CheckUser: m:Checkuser#Wikimedia_privacy_policy - based on Foundation privacy policy. - David Gerard 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Swinford

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

Yeah, I put a semi-block on it that expired after a week, so taking the tag off is good, thank you! - David Gerard

Ok, thanks. Robotman 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and OTRS

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

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

OTRS

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

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

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

Basically, we expect a lot of companies saying "our article is terrible because of x" and the clueful editors would need to point them at the talk page and possibly make the reasonable edits. Microsoft is famous, but for a lot of minorly notable companies, notes on their article talk pages might languish unread for ages. Someone's gotta make the edits, not just file them for someone else to make. Sandra is planning an actual press release by next Tuesday or so, and I would expect a sudden FLOOD of attention - David Gerard 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, should've clicked along a little further and seen that bit about "should be an admin" on the next page. Thanks for the answer nonetheless - I guess I'll stick with the Help Desk for now. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spaink image

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

Ah, good! Yes, it should be possible to upload it to Commons with a copy of and link to the permission. I have no idea about the proper way to note permissions on Commons, though ... - David Gerard 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's there now: Image:Karin_Spaink.jpg. Permission is noted using Commons' standard template, so that should be alright. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedalated.

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

Misplaced Pages fundraising

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

FYI

• FYI, new article, The Scandal of Scientology, you may be more capable/knowledgeable in expanding it w/ more info/material/citations than I... Smee 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Again, new article, Inside Scientology. Again, this is not my forte perse, so if you know of some more references/citations/secondary sources with some additional information, please feel free to add to it. Yours, Smee 07:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
    • I have tagged a whole bunch of articles directly related to the Wikiproject, thus adding them as well to the Assessment Page. So after all that tagging, it turns out the project now encompasses about 217 articles! Pretty neat. Oh, and check out new article created: A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. Yours, Smee 03:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Durin is really doing the figures thing at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard

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

He really has gone into great detail analysing RFA there.

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

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

You're going to Siberia, USA!

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

Brick 'O common sense

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

Did I do something wrong? El_C 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just feeding the issue at all. This one's really really really just best left in a box and not exposed to feeding via atmospheric idiocy. Everything in it is arguably covered by present policy and practice, and having a page to thrash out carefully-defined black-and-white boundaries of stupid is probably not a useful or helpful idea to writing an encyclopedia. Despite appearances, Misplaced Pages is not MySpace. And so forth. If you really seriously disagreee with this statement, well ... the talk page is still there and I have no doubt discussion will continue. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is in fact an elegant and simple rule that follows obviously from the core policies; if so, that'll be a place it can emerge from - David Gerard 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how the above relates to myself. Does it? More generally, I feel it is questionable for the project to allow pedophiles to identify themsleves as such and that this could prove to be a public relations disaster. But if the Wiki Establishment has opted to perpetuate the practice, I won't bang my head on a brick (of common or otherwise sense) wall. El_C 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration decision was that we want the project to be open to people of different beliefs, and when editing articles, for those people to come together to agree on a consensus version. At the same time, we don't want people s' self identifications to bring the project into disrepute. And if it sounds like these two goals are mutually contradictory - yes, we are well aware. Which is why we (the committee) are going to take pre-emptive measures to stamp out any effort to stir the pot, as we have done here. Or, to use an old metaphor - it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

So to answer your question directly - no, this is nothing personally directed at you. It's just that we are making a concerted effort to prevent another huge blowout. Raul654 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. Do you intend to take any measures about the self-identification? Let me be blunt: there are powerful commercial and otherwise forces hostile to the project which may exploit any indecision on that front to cause us very bad publicity. We are in agreement on the need to prevent another blowout within the Misplaced Pages, but my fear is (which perhaps you could address for me) that this could come at the risk of a 'blowout' in the mainstream media. El_C 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not an easy question to answer, and I'm not Solomon - I'll give it my best shot though. I think, perhaps, it would be best if we judge people by the edits they make, and not their self identification. To this end, a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy might be best. Raul654 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; but let me be more blunt with respect to the -don't tell bit: does the committee intends to prohibit this self-identification? Are you considering concrete steps at this time? El_C 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not discussing it at the moment because we *just* found out about this last night (I noticed it and raised the alarm on our mailing list). The consensus was to shoot that thing in short order. Beyond that, I/we/they are not really aware of an ongoing problem. If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. If you want to press the issue, you could file a request for clarification on the issue. Raul654 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very pleased we see eye to eye on this. I found David's comment a bit difficult to parse (I, however, would like to remind him, or at least state for the record, that I was never involved in an edit/wheel war even remotely related to this set of issues, ever). I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I will try to author a request for clarification soon (which, incidentally, would have been my first choice, before adding it to existing policy, and I certainly would not have been in favour of the aforementioned WP:PEDO-specific policy proposal — I explain the reasons for my participation in that effort with my response to Kim bellow, and here). Thanks again for articulating the Committee's position (as well as your own) so clearly. They are fortunate to have you as a member. El_C 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The edit the brick refers to was 15:14, 21 February 2007 . . David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) (Protected Misplaced Pages:Pedophiles: um, no. The pedophile wheel war is not meant to be an annual derby. ) Raul654 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

<g r i n> I second the brick of common sense. --Kim Bruning 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Hmm, now I wonder if having a separate usertype who can still read deleted revisions would be worth the while. (I'd like to encourage some of the older admins to hand in the bit, so as to stress the "no big deal" concept.)

Kim, basically, there was a section that began with: "It is acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage..." — which I replaced with: "It is not acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage. The very act of identifying as a pedophile is disruptive." I am pleased to see that the Committee shares my view (I presumed they did to begin with; I did not author the policy and found it far from an ideal approach, but it served to get my point across through a more comprehensible format than WP:AN). El_C 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I feel tempted to just say that people should know for themselves whether or not they self-identify as pedophiles.... in the same way that cubans are totally free to display a "I hate castro" userbox, germans are free to show an "I support the neo-nazi movement" userbox, israelis are free to display a "all power to hamas" userbox, etc.

Or am I being too much of a darwinist here? ;-) --Kim Bruning 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ps. Bishonen was saying nice things about you today, and I did see your edits as well! :-)

I long for a world where there is no longer a reason for such hate, userboxen and beyond (no, it is not intrinsic to 'human nature'!), and whereas editors such as Raul & Bishoen (she always says nice things about me, some even true!) support the WP:FARC, I support the FARC — how's that for (liberal-democratic) disrepute? Of course, this goes beyond the scope of the discussion here, but, to be pedantic: not "in the same way." This, since pedophilia is universally outlawed by all nation-states (while the conditions faced by girls in many underdeveloped countries result in them entering into wedlock at very early age, even those countries, at least de jure, all follow some sort of legal doctrine which prohibits it). El_C 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Embarassing

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

I heard about it when someone on IRC called Parker's page "a comedy goldmine". My IP is static and easily tracked down; file the post under "this is the shit I put up with" - David Gerard 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it true, though? Or, better said, what's true IN there? Is it just complete lies, or are there some grains of truth? We've heard SOME things about WikiAbuse before... >_> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.134.182 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Parker Peters appears to be the performance artist commonly known as Enviroknot. I have no intention of going through his concentrated stupidity looking for possibly true sentences - David Gerard 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is an interesting read. I see your cronies even as I speak.

I seem to still get people dumb enough to email me stuff for WikiTruth thinking I have any link with it whatsoever. Haven't had an RFC at all yet, let alone a certified one. But I'm sure actual evidence will show up with the invective one day in the far, far future - David Gerard 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh forget about it. Who are we kidding? You're a perfect admin. 69.137.223.153 09:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

David, I've blocked the above editor for three hours for general nastiness as well as a suspicion that it's a blocked editor anyway. Any comment from you on this would be welcome in the AN/I thread here. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is what is wrong with Misplaced Pages. I don't know if the article is real or not. But do you have any proof that this user is a blocked editor? This story got up on DIGG, remember. Millions of people saw this piece. Chances are, this is a completely anonymous user who has no relationship to any of this. Your blocking him, rather than trying to argue your position (as David did when I asked him above) just shows you as an abusive administrator, rather than a rational one.

Everybody does stupid things. I've vandalized several pages as part of movements online (a few of which I agreed with, a few of which I started), though I've also made several useful edits as well. The people who reverted me were wise enough to realize that I wasn't a nasty terrorist, just a mild prankster. And to ban for a comment on a talk page is ridiculous. Something's happened to the once-jolly Misplaced Pages, and not for the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.134.182 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Times article

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

Essjay

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

Thanks, Parker! Or reasonable equivalent. I see your talk page demonstrates your current superlative abilities at working with others - David Gerard 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake - David Gerard 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you're really into making Misplaced Pages an enjoyable collaborative environment other than a place where you simply bully people and get all smug for knowing the difference between 'your' and 'you're.' What kind of furniture do you have in your ivory tower? 67.88.208.65 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/Essjay

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

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

Parody article re: Essjay/Jimbo

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

Deletion of User:Essjay/RFC

David,

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

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

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

—Doug Bell  15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I'd endorse this, it seems odd that only administrators should have access to the discussion now, established non-admins also need to see the debate however unpleasant and painful it may have been. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So we now have the Essjay RFC listed on here yet no one can look at it. Astounding Munta 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Only admins can look at it now Giano 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is at ANI. Dragons flight 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion? No. Archiving is done, but deleting is not done. Deleting is a paranoia multiplier and a drama escalator. This is especially the case since people who feel betrayed by Essjay's putting himself forward are going to suspect that he "quit" only to return or under a reincarnation. Geogre 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course deletion is done. The lynch mob made it into an "RFC" to give it colour of not being a lynch mob. Then it failed to meet even that standard. Out it goes. If you feel I'm that dead wrong, I invite you to bring an RFC or Arbcom case, i.e. put up or shut up - David Gerard 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is wise to call many respected editors a lynch mob, all you are doing is irritating a potentially even more unplesant situation. Giano 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I probably won't go this far, I agree - David Gerard 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

People have made reasoned arguments here and you respond with "put up and shut"? Being out of process isn't really an argument for deletion in this case IMHO, there's an overriding public interest defence. But there's really no need for such a combative style, we're here to talk about it, nobody wants anymore of a dust up than has already occured - I'm concerned that you and your actions are inflaming the situation. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

imposter

http://en.wikipedia.org/Shelby_Young

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

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

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

Shelby 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelby,

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

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

Shelby 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WM

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

WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. What do you think? Smee 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

A recent edit war...

Hello,

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

• "Remove suspected meatpuppet"
• "Remove trolling"

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

Thank-You for understanding,

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

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

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

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

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

Official Pollicy!!!!1

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

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

IRC

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

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

Re: Work in progress

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

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

FYI

• User:Justanother wants to delete/AFD the article you created that was later expanded upon, David Gaiman. Yours, Smee 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

P-Basses

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

Thank you

I appreciate your rapid assistance. Durova 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Want to run something past you.

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

Well, you've seen this message by now and didn't object, so I'll take that as a yes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, sorry, yes. Sounds like a good idea to me :-) - David Gerard 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

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

Hey, whatever works :-) I just followed the generic template ... - David Gerard 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay great, thanks. I was nervous there for a second. Hope you're doing well. Yours, Smee 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

FAR of Humpback Whale

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

Peter Dobbie

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

Thanks

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

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

Oh, I was just blocking the socks en masse, not chasing all edits as well. (Someone asked "could you please checkuser this apparent miscreant?" and I looked at the result and went "flippin' 'eck, it's a nest of 'em!" I'll try to remember the mass reverting in future, time permitting - David Gerard 07:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't even know that checkuser could do that now. Do you mean to say you got all the Churchpuppets? (I find it hard to believe there were only 9 left, so there are probably more out there...)

Anyway, if you look at the contributions you'll probably see why I want them reverted. If I do it myself, though, then I'm just inviting more abuse. Right now, he sees me as the source of all his problems on Misplaced Pages (instead of, you know, himself). So could you do me a favor and mass-revert those accounts' contributions? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno that I got all of them, and of course he will probably come back repeatedly. But yes, certainly :-) - David Gerard 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming controversy FAR

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

AfD nomination of Omegatrend

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

The Venetians (Australian Rock Band)

• David,

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

"jawdropping idiocy

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

"# Oppose - As a Johnny come lately member of the community I have many (as yet to be expressed) opinions about many wikipedia policies. I thank Danny for his overall contributions and participation and consider him a valuable member of the community. Since I am allowed to express a vote and an opinion, I choose to express opposition as a vote in opposition of many of the things Danny stands for as a representative of Misplaced Pages (which isn't personal - it's more structural). I'd rather see things go in a lot of different directions, and this is one humble mechanism for expressing myself about wikipedia. If that's not kosher for RfA's, lemme know."

I mean, what the fuck. - David Gerard 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That particular opposition you site isn't very clearly phrased, but I think I understand what it is trying to say. I think it wants to say:

1. Danny's a good contributor
2. But as an admin, he would be a representative of Misplaced Pages
3. And a representative of Misplaced Pages shouldn't be someone who supports biting newbies, not reacting to constructive criticism, etc.

I can't guarantee that's what he's trying to say, but I am parsing it that way because if so, it is exactly what a lot of other people are trying to say.

But let's say that I'm wrong. Let's say that this particular opposer woke up one morning and decided to oppose someone because their user name starts with D. That is still not a reason for calling the other 100+ oppose reasons "idiocy", is it? Some of those 100 reasons are better than others. --AnonEMouse 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The essential problem is that you are confusing "assume good faith" with "assume competence" - your answer seems to address the commenter's sincerity. However, "assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "don't assume malice when stupidity will suffice." I don't question most of the "oppose" votes' sincerity. I strongly question their judgement.

And really: if you can't look at the "oppose" list and see lots of deeply sincere deep stupidity, then me taking you through the comments one by one won't help.

See also the bureaucrats' eventual decision, which does dissect the stupidity on a comment-by-comment basis. - David Gerard 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Atom feeds

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

Hi

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

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

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

My final comment on Danny's RfA...

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

Help with sockpupettry

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

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

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

Possible vandalism by User:COFS

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

Addressing the problem with RFA

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

That is interesting. I have added it to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Feel free to comment there -- Cat 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my RFA

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

User:216.165.158.7

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

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

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

Erroneous RefBot block

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

Um, anyone could who's familiar with your reasons for wanting an unblock - are there no admins associated with the request? - David Gerard 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Other admins are making up different incorrect reasons rather than evaluating your block. See User talk:RefBot. There is at least one unwritten rule about using {{unblock}} multiple times and I don't know what other traps there are in seeking admin review. (SEWilco 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

See below - the entire bot approval process looks like it's about to be taken out and shot, and it appears well-deserved - David Gerard 07:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll deal with whatever the bot approval process is after someone cleans up the ArbCom kangaroo court. But your block is in the way of both those processes because nobody wants to review it and it serves as an excuse to not do anything. I could create yet another name for the task, as the ArbCom referred to me under any name so gave no name restrictions, but then your block would serve as a reason to block that. (SEWilco 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

No response. Did you get distracted by the bot bureaucratic mess? My request has nothing to do with that. (SEWilco 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Personal attacks

Please make your point without namecalling. I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. As an admin you should already know this. _InBC 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

When asking people to be civil, it is important to be civil yourself. _InBC 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivility is one thing, a personal attack is quite another. There also comes a point when incivility goes out of the window; that point comes when you're being unreasonably treated and (seemingly) nobody cares much about it. If you'd like to follow my contribs trail (not that I suggest you do), it's become quite clear that people are happy to scapegoat me for what was basically a failure of the IRC cartel to inform BAG of it's decisions.

All that said, I value your opinion most highly, and if you think I overstepped the mark there I humbly apologise. Thank you for pointing it out. --kingboyk 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace. _InBC 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard#Endorse block

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

Yes, when I see that calibre of bureaucracy for its own sake I have to remember only to delineate the gross foolishness rather than merely point at it - David Gerard 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In short, if you're damn sure you're better than them, act like it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "un-wiki"

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

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

Capitalised gibberish

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

Oh d*mn. Nae'blis has already pointed this out. Forget I said anything. I'll go back to finding references for this annoying article I'm trying to save. Carcharoth 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ORLY! - David Gerard 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

YA RLY. :-) Carcharoth 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Discussion.

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

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

Apologies

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

Bizarre

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

Nonsense. There is no "AvB's problem regarding the Gaimans". I took up some chores at the BLPNB some time ago. Unlike ChrisO I do not have a POV regarding Scientology and pick up cases as time permits. My understanding of the relevant policies is shaping up nicely. In most cases editors accept my intervention. ChrisO apparently finds my interpretation of WP:BLP too strict. Another editor found it too lenient. Both have cast aspersions on my understanding of policy and motivation. People are most welcome to discuss policy with me. But questioning my motivation? Behind my back? That's what I consider bizarre. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is bizarre is the degree to which you appear to be using unthinking adherence to your interpretation of policy ahead of anything resembling obvious good sense. Talk:David Gaiman is the only place I've seen anyone ever seriously claim they're not related - David Gerard 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We ended up with the bizarre situation of being able to say in the Neil Gaiman article that his father was David Gaiman, a South Coast businessman, his mother was Sheila Gaiman, a pharmacist, and the family moved to East Grinstead in 1965; but we couldn't say that this was the same person as David Gaiman, a south coast businessman married to Sheila, a pharmacist, with a son called Neil, who moved to East Grinstead in 1965. I would defy anyone to find the logic in that situation. It's patently obvious that it's the same family. I was lucky enough (and it was a complete fluke) to find a newspaper article that stated the relationship explicitly, but even before then we had enough reliably-sourced evidence to make the connection. -- ChrisO 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• "unthinking adherence" - my arguments were not only based on my interpretation of policies, experience in applying them, or my own common sense. Common sense and policy arguments had also been advanced by other editors removing the same info. To the degree I've repeated the latter, you are criticizing them as much as you're criticizing me.
• "... is the only place ... related" (David) and "... It's patently obvious ..." (Chris) - straw men. I was not advancing the bizarre notion that they are not father and son.
• I still have my doubts about the wisdom of outing Neil to the rest of the world in Misplaced Pages based on a revelation in a local paper that linked him with Scientology. But as I wrote after ChrisO had found a source: I'm not reverting. The info is in the articles. I'm not disputing it. You've got what you wanted. You're convinced this will have no consequences. Flogging this dead horse serves no purpose whatsoever. AvB ÷ talk 09:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

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

In vain

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

Thank you for your comment there - it seems the eastern staters have been trying to set up a wiki media thing that should technically handle the thing - but it dosnt look like its happening much. cheers SatuSuro 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I brought back memories of your home state - seeing you edit wittenoom - I do hope you never had rels/family who suffered from having lived there at all! SatuSuro 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A descriptive header

Today's featured policy A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or cause disruption. (more...)Archive – By email – More policies...

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

Your comment on ANI

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

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

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

Template:No GFDL

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

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

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

RFAr Piotrus

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

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

Fair use

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

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

Sorry, I'll go the hack with more care in future - David Gerard 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin RFC

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

Oops, you may be right - I'll check - David Gerard 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct - I can't count. Undeleted - David Gerard 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On your ANI comment: so tried and failed isn't warning the user about incivilty and having her ignoring it and removed it? --TeckWiz is now R Contribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DSmart Block

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

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

User talk:Dsmart-3000ad

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

Chiming in, I just reviewed the text Kingboyk refers to, and I think it's still squarely in 'legal threat' territory. He's advocating a lawsuit against an editor, and offering to work with Wikimedia foundation to do it. That's super duper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a retraction of all threats? Well, I'd suggest it's not really anything of the sort. Of course, whatever his legal chances or his status as an editor, if we're going to have Derek Smart as an article then we should make it the best article we can. To this end I've put a note on WP:BLPN asking for experienced living bio editors to go over it with a fine-toothed comb - David Gerard 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hullo David,

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

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

My (Selket's) RfA

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

Fishman Affidavit

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

Yeah, I meant specifically about OT VIII, since Talk:OT VIII was the talk page I said that on :-) - David Gerard 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, heh... but it made it sound as if it throws the entire Fishman Affidavit into doubt, which I don't think it does. wikipediatrix 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording in the article (at the expense of the sentence structure) - David Gerard 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Land

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

I'd question that in Seth Finkelstein's case, but anyway - David Gerard

I agree with you there! Jehochman (/_contrib) 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! There is a fallacy of the excluded middle in evidence. -- Seth Finkelstein 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

David, do you think I did the wrong thing by giving an interview to Stephan? Jehochman (/_contrib) 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Link? They asked if I'd do an email interview and I said "sure, why not", but haven't heard back - David Gerard 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

checkuser

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

If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not - David Gerard 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a Jen Kettle connected with the Film Unit in Sheffield. I was surprised at the wide range of IP addresses given - is it the case that LJS has logged on (as LJS) from all these IP addresses at some point? -- roundhouse 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is a Jen Kettle in Sheffield, there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt Lewis when he says this but as David has noted the pattern of edits is somewhat suspicious. Whilst this may be others who have been made aware of conflicts Lewis has found himself in, it does seem slightly unlikely that the edits would be made without Lewis knowing. For example, the prodding of a userpage doesn't seem like something someone with little knowledge of Misplaced Pages would do. I'd draw his attention to the Meatpuppets section of the sock puppetry policy which is certainly relevant. Adambro 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as confirmed in the RFCU. On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Misplaced Pages is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid - David Gerard 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Agreed, but a sockpuppet and meatpuppet are not the same, so it is wrong to try and convinct me of the former, in addition to the suggestion that Jen is merely an extension of me (she'd have a right go at you about that! :) ). The wireless systems each of us have is set up as a network, with my (or my girlfriend's) PC set up as server/master, and all others connecting via it, so that it cannot be used without our knowing, and the master has to dial up to the router every time it is turned on. This would likely explain the many IPs alluded to by Pc1dmn, and also the timings of the attacks. I do not make a habit of making personal attacks on users (although heated debates have been known), and I bear no grudge against the user - indeed, on two occasions, I actually reverted the vandalism!

Incidentally, I am currently on a university computer, so I assume my IP will be different again. L.J.Skinner 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you lock down your wifi, then. Any WEP is provably crackable in two minutes or less; WPA is the only sensible option - David Gerard 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, from tomorrow, I guess I'll have to close it. I don't want to, but I suppose it's the only way. I do not need this. L.J.Skinner 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Andy Mabbett 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Certain admins

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

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

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Errabee

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

... . --Gmaxwell 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Eureka

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

Illegal number

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

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

Access to #wikipedia-en-admins

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

No worries - do you have an IRC cloak set up? (e.g. Misplaced Pages/jossi) - if not, then email me with what your name shows up as when you do /whois jossi (e.g. I get (n=fun@wikimedia/DavidGerard): Not dead yet, but don't push it - David Gerard 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am logged on now at #wikipedia-en and I show up as jossi, username: jossif. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I set up a cloak? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/IRC_channel_cloaks - ask JamesF or Xyrael- or go to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~swhitton/cloaks - David Gerard 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-wrestling vandalism

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

I gotta go now, but basically all the edits by all the names I just blocked ... - David Gerard 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get on it. — The Future 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And.. finished reverting.. — The Future 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

72.75.73.158's block

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

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

The user has revealed themselves and officially doesn't care publicly: User talk:Dennette#Anonymous_WikiGnome_or_Sockpuppet.3F. Read that section carefully. I'm really not sure what to do in this case - David Gerard 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And I agree Geo was taunting. If you can offer Dennette continuing friendly guidance, that'd be the best thing for all. I've unblocked the IP - David Gerard 23:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Block by error

Not a problem... Errors happen.

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

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

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO AN ENTIRE TOWN IN CANADA. Evidently I need to drink my kitten blood when it's fresh - David Gerard 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How about RefBot? Or do I need to add kitten blood to its capabilities before getting a review? (SEWilco 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

A Survival Guide to SEO & Misplaced Pages

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

Flaming death

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

Hello,

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

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

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

Re-opened. Newyorkbrad 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks of JB196

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

Thanks...

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

I refer the honorable gentleman to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free_content#Excess_use_of_screenshots, where this issue was last hashed out ad nauseam. (e.g. "Because we are dealing with content that is non-free, we do not need a compelling reason to remove them; we need, per WP:NFCC#8 a compelling reason to include them.") I also fear I must suggest to him that if he insists he's right and lots of experienced users say he's wrong, that he consider in passing that he might be wrong and stop looking for loopholes where there are none - David Gerard 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I expect an admin, of all editors, to have a much better understanding of why Wikimedia's free content policies - David Gerard 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of information; he's not an administrator. He's had three RfAs , all of which failed. --Durin 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I must have been thinking of someone else - David Gerard 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrubbery, English

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

Wacky amusing punnery, strikes me as - David Gerard 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rl 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Need user and talk page protection

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

Best way to salt a username is to register it yourself then forget the password - David Gerard 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't that be considered "creating a sockpuppet?" That's exactly what I was trying to avoid! OTOH, if I never make any edits using the account, then it really can't be called a sock.

But I have a greater concern which coincidently just manifested itself ... please see User talk:72.75.73.158#removing db-nouser tag ... without a protected User page, any anon could place a {{db-nouser}} on the page, and with no edits since creation, and reasonable admin would probably just zap it.

Well, on your advice, I shall create a "fictitious" user account that I will never use for edits, nor shall I ever make any edits to the User or Talk pages, but I'm sure that Some Other Editor will place a {{Welcome}} on it inside of a month, and then there will be activity on the Talk page. <Sigh!>

If anyone accuses me of "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point," then I'll just point them at this conversation. —68.239.79.82 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up ... OK, I created the account, and was thinking maybe Just One Edit ... what do you think of copying User talk:68.239.79.82/WikiGnome to that User Talk page as the sole entry, so that it can be referenced instead of my sandbox page?

I guess that the dates in the signatures would be bogus, but right now, those are bogus signatures anyway. (Been up for 36 hours ... think I'll crash now. :-) —68.239.79.82 08:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother stuff

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

Remain calm and loving in attitude, and if someone insists on digging a hole for themselves, you probably can't stop them. Think of every edit henceforth as arbitration evidence if it helps - David Gerard 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that other users may have the same idea in mind: User:Orsini/Sandbox3, User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3... Smee 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

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

I'd say do well by doing good, and not being baited by an organisation with actual training courses in baiting people - David Gerard 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Too true, perhaps we had all forgotten for a moment, about their expertise in that arena... Smee 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, and if I were black I would be a good dancer too; but I am Irish so I will just have to get drunk. --Justanother 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those would be marvellously apposite analogies if they had to pay to take courses to gain said skills - David Gerard 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have only finished my HBD course. I have yet to do the HBB course. --Justanother 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Security

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

Ski Resort Deletions

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

I am actively working on being less of a dick *ahem* - David Gerard 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, you described me as "user page-less." I prefer not to have a user page describing me because I like to think people would judge you by your body of edits and actions rather then any self-described expertise or authority. question: Is this a bad angle to take? Should I at least describe my hobbies or my life so as to gain credibility? I just find it difficult to believe that wikipedia has such a focus on "sources" and "verifiability" but, at the same time, allow all editors to make any claim of expertise or experience imaginable to gain credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C5mjohn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

More assholism on my part, sorry. FWIW, a lot of people redirect their User: page to their User Talk: for this reason - David Gerard 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing. Whenever a "red user" does something "non-newbie-ish", my first thought is "SPA" so I check contributions to see if it is. --Ron Ritzman 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Question on COI

• I believe the inherent troubling issues that have been exposed via Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS bring up violations of WP:COI, specifically issues relating to financial support and superior directives relating to multiple users who have the current privilege of editing on the project. Specifically, I have outlined some of these points at Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#User:MyWikiBiz_.2F_WP:COI and at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS#User:Grrrilla_as_well....

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

• User:Orsini has already brought up the suggestion of a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and others have repeatedly mentioned the idea of WP:Rfar. What do you think of all this? Smee 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Burntsauce

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

RE: #wikipedia-en-admins

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Harryosborngotcha.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it die, let it die, let it dieeeee! - David Gerard 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While it was on its way to the chopping block, I couldn't help noticing that it was pretty huge, being a 256-color png. My itchy fingers insisted on reducing it to 16 colors. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

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

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

facts and dead links

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

Spoiler tags

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

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Spoiler#Change_to_.22only_use_sparingly.2C_only_for_brand_new_stuff.22. Notinasnaid 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing spoiler tem,plates en-masse. DES 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Aloha...

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

Braveheart Edits

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

They are ludicrously unencyclopedic. No-one should be looking up a work of fiction in an encyclopedia and have spoiler tags to contend with. Worse, they blatantly encourage a culture of working around spoilers to the detriment of NPOV - which happens to be a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to be imposing your personal opinion on the readers of this encyclopedia? Where do you get off deciding that "no-one should be doing" something or other? Wahkeenah 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I did ask if you could cite specific Misplaced Pages policy that opts to not have tags in film articles, no matter how old the film is. I understadn your POV in this matter, but I am asking you to cite some specific policies, As far as I see it, having the spoiler tags is not an end-run around NPOV, but gives the reader fair warning that the info they are going to read might spoil the film or television programs for them. If you feel that the curretn policy and practice is insufficient, I would suggest directing your concerns to the WikiProject film Discussion area. Arcayne () 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They encourage people to write around the spoilers rather than write an encyclopedic article. The Crying Game is a typical example. Without the twist in the intro - which should, remember, be a standalone short article - it's not actually NPOV any more, but being written around the spoiler.

In any case, it's grossly unencyclopedic. Name me one other encyclopedia that includes spoiler warnings - David Gerard 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I commend to you the de:wp policy on the subject, which more or less translates:

When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.

Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.

In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Misplaced Pages, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.

- David Gerard 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're imposing your value judgments on everyone else, and it's highly offensive. Who are you to decide whether a viewer should somehow already be familiar with a story? Wahkeenah 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, your unilateral decision to impose your will on the viewers amounts to vandalism, and all of your changes will be reverted. Wahkeenah 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read more of your comments and am even more offended by your condescending value judgment about what the readers of wikipedia "should be doing". That is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You are what is technically known as a "nanny". Wahkeenah 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, let's all calm down. David, I disagree with your viewpoint here, and I am not sure that quoting the German wikipedia is the best way to state (or paraphrase) how another wiki does it. I have recommended that you explore and discuss expanding the policy regarding films in the WikiFilms project. A grass roots campaign to change policy by example is bound to be contentious with those users familiar with how films in the English language Wiki are put together. If you can cite a policy fromt he English wiki, that would be great. Arcayne () 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to help me revert his edits? Wahkeenah 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You realise that saying "let's have an edit war" on the wiki is probably not the most clueful thing you could do on Misplaced Pages - David Gerard 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's not a threat - it's a comment on the sort of editor the {{spoiler}} tag evidently attracts - David Gerard 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did: NPOV. You know, that fundamental content policy which isn't up for voting, which subprojects can't declare they want to ignore and which if you disagree with you're on the wrong project? - David Gerard 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If by that you mean that there will be no more spoiler tags allowed, then it's hopeless. The nannies, the fascists have won. The readers be damned. Wahkeenah 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh darn those neutrality fascists! You'd think we were here to write an encyclopedia or something! - David Gerard 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no "neutrality" issue. You are using that as a red herring to impose your will on the readers of wikipedia. Wahkeenah 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So go to that page and make a convincing argument. It's not a vote, a really convincing argument may actually sway hearts and minds - David Gerard 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to. But the nannies don't get the point. They are talking in double-think: that giving readers a choice is somehow "censorship", when nothing is being censored by the presence of a "spoiler" tag. Wahkeenah 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's like the Soup Nazi, except this time, he's forcing the information down your throat instead of censoring it so it can't get to you. Darn, I always thought I could trust Misplaced Pages to give me information but I guess the POV cabal is trying to stop that. Axem Titanium 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Kindly translate. I don't talk in abbreviations, unlike that kid in the cellphone ad. Wahkeenah 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See the MFD itself (and I don't know what DNFT means either, FWIW) - David Gerard 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do not fucking t____?" As for the "spoilers" in Braveheart, I'll give you a hint: it doesn't end well for the Scots. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not feed the troll (ish behavior), aka WP:DNFT. Arcayne () 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

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

I'd consider not having it used stupidly (sections already marked "Plot summary"? Character articles? Author biographies? Anagram?!) a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. I've added spoiler templates myself in the past, but the present situation is utterly and comprehensively on crack - David Gerard 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that spoiler is over used, and I would make some attempts to restrict it. I agree that using it in some of the places you cite is uncalled for (although I think that an article-by-article determination would be needed for such things as Character articles and Author biographies, even though I think that in most such cases spoiler warnings should not be used). I disagree with your position on not using it in "Plot summary" sections. For one thing, if it were banned there, it would IMO only lead to edit wars about omitting "spoilers" completely. For another, although strictly speaking such warnings are redundant, i think that in fact they are useful in that situation to people who do in fact want to avoid spoilers. I presented a list of 8 suggestions in my comments linked above: I repeat them here:

• 1. Spoiler warnings should not be used on classic, widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare, or the works of Homer.
  2. However, spoiler warnings should not be limited to recently released works -- many long -released works are new to particular readers.
  3. Significant facts should not normally be omitted from an article lead merely to avoid spoilers. This may be temporarily suspended for unreleased or recently released works.
  4. There should normally be a marker used to indicate the end of a section that contains spoilers, if a spoiler warning is used.
  5. Editors should be urged to consider whether plot details are really "spoilers". Works where the plot details are relatively obvious and not in any way surprising, and no attempt seems to be made to surprise the reader should probably not have spoiler warnings used at all.
  6. Plot sections in general should be reduced in size ans scope. WP:FICT calls for this now, but is widely ignored.
  7. The use or non-use of spoiler warnings in a particular article should be a matter of consensus among the editors of that article, to be determined on its talk page, just as with all other matters of article content. Drastic changes without consensus are discouraged.
  8. The general format of spoiler warnings should be uniform across wikipedia, and should be a matter of general consensus. Drastic changes should not be made without seeking consensus for the change.

I hope you would find something along these lines a basis for discussion. DES 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good edits

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

Autoblock?

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

Highlander (series) edits

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

One more comment regarding your deletion of spoilers . . .

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

Plot spoilers

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

Access to #wikipedia-en-admins

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

You should have it. Try /cs invite #wikipedia-en-admins - David Gerard 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, David. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Grateful

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

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

Spoilers

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

{{tl:spoiler}}

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

I'd also point out that just about every removal I've done of an IMO inappropriate spoiler tag has stood ... which suggests that in practice, "consensus" is actually against over-spoilering - David Gerard 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and #¤%&@ -- that makes it entirely too difficult to check if you broke WP:AWB rules. I'll leave that to 87, who's better at it.
I point out, as devil's advocate if not anything else, that it's been less than a day, that most of those are rather low-profile articles, and that restoration of spoiler tags takes rather more thought than the usual maintenance.
As for what you've wrought, there's a reason for the redundancy that I don't think you've considered: Spoiler and endspoiler tags cordon off parts of the article, parts that often start with the plot section because that comes very early in our common article structure, but may or may not end there. Without spoiler tags, the reader must assume that the entire article can contain spoilers. Last Tuesday, I found a book on a library sale and checked our coverage. I found a two-line plot synopsis, the spoiler tag, a plot summary, the endspoiler tag, a nifty spoiler-free "themes" section, and external links. I was pleased with what I read and bought it, which I would not have been able to do without the tags.
Finally, you mentioned in the discussion that you'd support a note about it on the spoiler template itself. I agree. There's no invitation to discussion over a public matter, so a measure much bigger than, say, any webcomic AfD is currently getting considerably less exposure than one of those would. That just don't jive (or whatever). If a note on the template is unacceptable, what say you to trying to get this covered on the Signpost? That would be by an outside party, and it could not count as canvassing. --Kizor 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why they wouldn't cover it. Most interesting thing on the wiki so far this week - David Gerard 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No response so far to a suggestion on the spoiler tag's discussion page to add a MFD-like text... I noticed that the suggestion had gathered support, but no one had implemented it. You could do it yourself, being an admin. --Kizor 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If I do I will definitely acquire excess moral approbation! Need someone neutral who thinks it's a good idea - David Gerard 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And anyone who's read enough of the debate to have an informed opinion probably isn't neutral anymore... if we need outsiders, could you make a post on AN/I or a similar page, or should we just start grabbing them by the ankles as they pass by? --Kizor 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

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

The relevant talk page at present is Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning - if you go to the bottom, you'll see a request for actual evidence our readers care or ever cared about spoiler warnings. You could point them there - David Gerard 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you missed a {{spoiler-end}} in Good Will Hunting, so I have reverted you. When doing a mass edit, it would be very helpful to say something more informative than "rm redundant - plot summaries obviously contain plot elements - using AWB" in the edsum. From this edsum it would be impossible to know if anyone other than you found these warnings "obviously redundant". I would have included the phrase "per Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning" in my edsum. BTW, I am fine with removing both of them. --Jtir 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This run I'm zapping spoiler tags where they're on a ==Plot summary== or equivalent header. I keep missing the many, many variants on end-spoiler. Also, I'm removing them per self-evident ridiculousness, not per that discussion, so don't want to give the impression I'm using that as my justification - David Gerard 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know about the variants. Naming conventions don't seem to be a natural product of WP. --Jtir 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else removed both tags. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Library of Babel

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

Oh, I see from discussion above that the policy may have changed. Fine with me, but then this was a somewhat misleading edit summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an error in the edit summary. It should have been "redundant tag - plot summaries contain plot elements" - David Gerard 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

German Misplaced Pages,

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

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

Suspended spoiler comment

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages for Schools

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

Removal of spoiler warnings

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

See above on this talk page, where I have answered this question. That almost all of them are staying despoilered indicates it in fact isn't - David Gerard 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

roffle, I didn't see the six other topics where you answered it. hbdragon88 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Crystal Mangum Headshot.jpg

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

Is she dead? - David Gerard 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not. I don't think consensus is dead, either. Voretus 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" (i.e. five people in a strawpoll) doesn't override WP:BLP either. Read and learn - David Gerard 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way does BLP factor into that image, I'm blind and horrible at reading Voretus 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in only the article about her, which is now a redirect to the incident for good reason - David Gerard 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"It was in only the article about her ..." That is not true, the image was also on the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal article page. Duke53 | 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice, now why was it redirected? There wasn't even a courtesy reason given in an edit summary or on the article talk page so I would expect people to be confused Voretus 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read WP:BLP and I don't see the problem. Could you be a little more specific what the issue was? The issue of whether or not the page should be deleted was resolved nearly a year ago, and the consensus was that it should be kept. If there is some other reason to delete it, then I think it would be helpful for someone to articulate that reason rather than simply act arbitrarily and capriciously. Unlearned hand 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if a person is only famous for one incident - and no-one has really got any sources to write a full biography of them beyond that incident, then we can't have a biography. A biography is about the life of an individual, but if all we have is information about one incident, then we can have an article about the incident, but not about the individual. It's really a matter of what the sources make possible.--Doc 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, in this case, there were a number of articles written about Ms. Mangum that gave an overview of her life. Since that information was available and published by reputable sources, a full and balanced biography was possible. In fact, given that Mike Nifong's ethics trial is coming up next month, it seems likely that we have not heard the last from Ms. Mangum. Unlearned hand 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have confused Misplaced Pages with investigative journalism - David Gerard 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So you keep saying, and it still doesn't make any sense. Unlearned hand 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I see Moreschi went through this with you a week ago. Remember: in deletion process proceduralism versus minorly notable living bios, the bio is killed unless firmly unkillable. It's a sort of ultimate deletion hammer - David Gerard 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny that the decision when the article was RfD was to the contrary. But obviously you know better than the community does. Hell of a way to run a railroad. Unlearned hand 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is she dead" ? Are we going to go to each article and remove all pictures of living people? Duke53 | 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, just the "fair use" ones, and particularly the BLP imminent dangers - David Gerard 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically fair use pictures of living people are not allowed. We are a free content encyclopedia.--Doc 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Note

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

Crystal Gail Mangum

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

DRV

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

Spoiler tags and AWB

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