Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 30 July 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 5 (1 Jan 2007 - 31 May 2007)

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.

You can tell I've gotten sucked back into admin work by the fact that my talk page for May was as long as for January to April.

{{spoiler}} tags

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

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

Removing Spoiler tags in Demon Thief

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

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

You deleted Vern. But maybe you were right.

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

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

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

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

Did I delete him? Crikey, I don't remember doing that ...

Yeah, Special:Newpages is ... quite an experience. You'll know how it feels to want to KILL ALL THIS GARBAGE AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *cough* - David Gerard 12:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin mistakes lead to admin work

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

If you can't find one of 1200 other admins to bother with you ... there's a Misplaced Pages jargon term for that - David Gerard 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins afraid of reading the mind of a Cabal member who uses faulty mindreading for his actions? (SEWilco 03:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

BTW, could an admin with this talk page watchlisted and a bit much time on their hands look into SEWilco's problem? I find myself underinspired - David Gerard 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked into it. For whatever it may be worth, I endorse your block. He is specifically prohibited from making the sort of edits the bot is intended for. I see no reason to unblock that bot account, while leaving an indefinite block in place as long as the ArbCom sanction stands seems perfectly reasonable. Since his main objection seems to be to the "evasion" language, I will unblock and reblock with a specific reference to the ruling to prevent any confusion. Vassyana 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm only prohibited from "converting". There are other types of edits than conversion. Don't try to read my mind on what "sorts of edits the bot is intended for". You haven't seen my toolbox. (SEWilco 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

I've raised this issue for review on the sysop noticeboard. Vassyana 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Calanw.jpg

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

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

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

KILL IT! KILL IT! JUMP UP AND DOWN ON IT! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, MY ROBOTIC FRIEND!

... Oh. This one is definitely allowable. I'll just add the {{fairusein}} tag - David Gerard 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that

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

F'in Nonsense

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

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

The Working Man's Barnstar

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

The Template Barnstar

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

Hi

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

Don't do that - send it to me at dgerard@gmail.com or through Misplaced Pages "email this user" (which should be working now) - David Gerard 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup: Did you get the email? --Smokizzy (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WPCD torrent

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

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

Request for Comment: Spoiler tag deletion in Glenn Quagmire

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

WP:AFD? - David Gerard 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, on BJAODN

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

> Can I just note the useful, productive and argument-ending nature of
> this thread. Thank you. Do please all continue.
> - d.
It is a useful and productive thread if your goal is getting away with break-
ing the law (and frankly, the only plausible answer from any such thread is a
firm "maybe").  A more apt question would be, should we?  Do we really want
to not respect whatever copyright people might have on this content?  Clearly
the answer is no, unless you are a commie pinko bastard.
A more useful discussion would center around if the GFDL is being followed or
not.  The text can be found at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.txt.  Read it.
Done? Read it again, i'll wait.  A lot of it covers things like invariant
sections, cover texts on print versions, disclaimers, endorsements, and other
things so I'm going to skip around a lot.
BJAODN generally consists of material copied from a Document licensed under
the GFDL.  Does anyone dispute that this would likely be a "Modified Version"
of the Document? 
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
> modifications and/or translated into another language.
Section 4 covers what must be done to make, copy, or distribute a "Modified
Version".
> 4. MODIFICATIONS
> 
> You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
> the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
> the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
> Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
> and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
> of it.  In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
Straight forward, we must do these things.
...
> A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct
>    from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions
>    (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section
>    of the Document).  You may use the same title as a previous version
>    if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
> B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
>    responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
>    Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
>    Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five),
>    unless they release you from this requirement.
A Title Page is defined as:
> The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself,
> plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material
> this License requires to appear in the title page.  For works in
> formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means
> the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
> preceding the beginning of the body of the text.
What the title of a document for a Misplaced Pages article is really any guess,
it cannot really be the ] as you are supposed change it with
every version unless you have permission.  We don't have [[United States ver.
3959529]] nor do we have explicit permission from all of the authors of the
previous versions to use the same title for the Document.  The best I can 
work out for the Title Page would be the area between a page's title and the
text, which just says "" in monobook and
every other skin besides Nostalgia.  None of this of much importance to the
question of BJAODN /specifically/, but this is where the 5 principal authors
clause is.  It is talking about the Title Page, /not/ any other requirements
of attribution.  It is never used on Misplaced Pages as far as I know.
...
> D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
> E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications
>    adjacent to the other copyright notices.
Don't remove copyright notices is pretty straight forward.  However, if 
someone writes "Copyright (c) 2007 User:A_Vandal" in ]
can we remove it?  Image watermarks?  I'm not sure if any of these apply
to BJAODN.
> I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
>    to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
>    publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page.  If
>    there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one
>    stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as
>    given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified
>    Version as stated in the previous sentence.
It would be reasonable to say that the history tab could be considered
the "History" section.  If the WMF foundation is the publisher we might be
a little off.  Preserve does not mean put it in a jar of formaldehyde and 
place it in a hermetically sealed vault.  It means don't go screwing around
with the history section.
> J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
>    public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise
>    the network locations given in the Document for previous versions
>    it was based on.  These may be placed in the "History" section.
>    You may omit a network location for a work that was published at
>    least four years before the Document itself, or if the original
>    publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
I skipped the definition of a Transparent copy, but it basically means "source
code".  For a page on Misplaced Pages, is there a network location in the Document?
If you can come up with a workable definition of a Document for Misplaced Pages I 
would be quite surprised.  I cannot find anything that would qualify, so 
check "there isn't one".
...
That is everything we must do for one entry of a BJAODN page. If there is 
only one editor to what we wish to include and it is not based upon any of
the other revisions of the page it is from, we might cover these requirements
with an edit summary that mirrors the original history entry.  If the entry
does depend on the previous text there is not a real workable solution.  We
cannot fork a page off and have the history in two places at once.  A link to
the main article's history page does work, as then the page is tied to the
other page and the history section is misleading.  Even if we copied the text
of the history section onto a subpage of the talk page, we are not preserving
the history section, rather we are making a new section entitled "History"
and putting the real "History" section somewhere else.  If this was actually
allowed the attribution requirements would be very easy to game.  The easiest
solution is to just stick to BJAODNing things that can be page moved to a
subpage of BJAODN.
> 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
> You may combine the Document with other documents released under this
> License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified
> versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the
> Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and
> list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
> license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
...
> In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History"
> in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled
> "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements",
> and any sections Entitled "Dedications".  You must delete all sections
> Entitled "Endorsements".
This section comes into play either by the first entry of a collective
BJAODN page (the funny part + whatever the person who BJAODN'd adds which
ranges from just a section header of ==From === or a little background
from what I remember of the BJAODN) or when someone adds another entry.
Using a template or image would also probably meet the definition of a 
combined Document where we would have to include all of the history sections
of every template and image in one "History" section.  
> 9. TERMINATION
> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except
> as expressly provided for under this License.  Any other attempt to
> copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will
> automatically terminate your rights under this License.  However,
> parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
> License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> parties remain in full compliance.
There is no requirement for notification or a mulligan like the GPL is trying
to do with version 3.  When this is done within Misplaced Pages it is not clear
who's rights would be rejected, the person that copy/paste moves, the WMF
when someone accesses a page containing a copy/paste move, both?  The only
salvation is that someone else can relicense it to you, so hope someone else
makes an edit to the article that the content was copy/paste moved from. This
clause does throw a serious wrench into fixing BJAODN depending on how you
view it.  Someone who still has rights to the Document must broker a new 
license for those that have lost their rights, which likely includes the WMF.
All of this is only my view of a strict, plausible reading of the GFDL in
regards to a hostile party.  (Again, avoiding the issue of if someone could
or would come after us or if we can "get away with it".)  The GFDL is also 
very much a social contract, where we can bend the rules a little and cut
corners without people getting too upset.  This is not license to say "oh,
it is BJAODN, no one would ever care about that so lets do whatever the fuck
we want!"
So how do we fix it?  
1.  Find people that care about it and are actually willing to work on it. 
    They supposedly exist according to every MFD and whatever, but no one
    ever does it.
2.  Assign them to pages of BJAODN.
3.  Undelete and blank a page when someone is assigned to it.
4.  Have them find the source of an entry they think is funny.
5.  Copy the history of the source page to [[Talk:BJAODN/Source_page_history
     ]], there are scripts to even make it pretty on the transwiki help page.
6.  Restore the entry from the BJAODN page history with an edit summary that
    resonably replaces the history section of the old article.
7.  Hope no one is pissed that we are not following the letter of the GFDL.
8.  Make sure any new entries are either page moved into BJAODN or meet these
    requirements.
9.  Implement better GFDL compliance in MediaWiki.  Specifically, add page
    forking, add princial authors to the Title Page, make sure the History
    section includes information on all images and templates, and add a way
    to include history with merges besides "history merges".

Kotepho 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

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

Non-free use disputed for Image:GodLove.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

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

Interwiki inclusion criteria

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

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

Parkerconrad 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Illu96.jpg

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

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

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

Spoiler tags

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

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

Template talkpages

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

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

Non-free use disputed for Image:RiseBrains.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

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

The Stems

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

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

You have a flat ass

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

Spoliler tags

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

William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes

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

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

Spoilers?

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

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

Spoiler removal at Memories of Matsuko

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

"Removing redundant per Misplaced Pages:Spoiler - using AWB)"

Sethie has two questions for you:

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

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

1. Per WP:SPOILER, a section "Synopsis" is likely to contain ... plot elements! 2. I haven't been marking them as minor, should I? - David Gerard 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1 Thanks, the policy does say that. Sethie was in error.

2 Well.... ummmmm when Sethie looks here ] he sees a whole lotta m's for minor. Sethie 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's an error on my part. I'll try to remember to keep that unticked - David Gerard 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Need for Speed series characters

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

Dear $TEMPLATE, don't act like a tool. Thanks. Also, you're unlikely to goldfarm your way to the top with templates - $EDITOR, 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear $EDITOR, blow me. --MrStalker 06:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

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

If you see a heading saying "Plot summary" ... a spoiler warning is utterly redundant with it - David Gerard 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd never have guessed you could be so narrow-minded (I do apologize if that word is too strong) as to actually revert my edit and remove the spoiler warning again. So is this "utter redundancy" you are talking about some kind of new insight or what? Were we all, yourself included, completely wrong for five years in adding all those spoiler warnings? Why that zeal all of a sudden?

Judging from your reply, it may well be that you still haven't read the article. All the reviewers comment on the fact that the postponed disclosure of the family secret does not seem authentic but that the suspense created that way is the only reason for the reader to carry on reading. I suppose you are aware of the fact that a plot summary gives the plot in chronological order, so before you know it you learn about the family secret.

Also, you haven't answered my question. Are you eliminating all spoiler warnings? I think I've read on your talk page that there are cases where they are justified.

Once again, best wishes, <KF> 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, when you read a novel the postponed revelation makes sense. But if the reviewers are all commenting on the importance of this postponed revelation, then we should really mention it in the lead. Unless you're going to insist that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it, it doesn't make sense to hide the revelation.

Having said all that, this being a new novel it might make a bit of sense to stick a spoiler tag at the very top for a few months so that the article can be properly developed without upsetting too many people who haven't yet had a chance to read it. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this. Mention what in the lead? That a family secret is revealed in the novel, that it will take the reader 150 pages to learn what it is all about, or that Mike Hook is infertile and his kids are not his kids?

Of course I don't insist "that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it", quite the opposite. But it is exactly because the plot summary should not, and does not, mirror the reading experience that a spoiler warning seems justified.

I don't understand the last bit either. Who shouldn't be upset? Those who want to develop the article but haven't read the book? Those who have just paid ₤14.99 for the novel, just look up Graham Swift, see that there is already an article on Tomorrow and cannot resist clicking on it only to be told without any warning that the kids were test tube babies? I suppose the publishers had a good reason not to mention that on the dust jacket. <KF> 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to protect the readers experience on reading a novel or watching a film or TV episode. But that aside, a section titled "Synopsis" should be expected to contain spoilers. So a warning is unnecessary clutter. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag reverted

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

Your edit to Need for Speed series characters

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

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

Images

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

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

Spoiler guideline

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

AwB

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

Scattergun spoiler removal?

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

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

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

Your comments please

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

FARC

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

another unhappy spoiler tag fan

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

AWB

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

User:SFTVLGUY2

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

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

Mailing list

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

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

Spoiler tags

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

Request

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

Spoiler tags

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

This mostly affects one class of article: Stargate.

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

Diyako checkuser logs

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

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

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

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

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

Image:Motorhead.jpg

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

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

AFD closure

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

I considered the nomination and reasons for deleting it were fundamentally erroneous and misconceived, as well as not representing either consensus on the AFD or on how Misplaced Pages does things - David Gerard 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Don't be silly" is an inappropriate comment in closing an AFD in which 10 editors gave reasons for deleting it and 11 gave reasons for keeping it. The reasons stated for deleting it were not silly. "No consensus" would have been a more accurate summary. I am surprised to see such an incivil comment posted by an administrator. And how do the reasons given for deleting "not represent the consensus on the AFD?" That defies logic. I request that you edit your closing comment to remove the attack on those who, in all seriousness, called for the article to be deleted. Thanks. Edison 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're talking like it's a numerical vote - David Gerard 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If that was your impression, then reread it. A significant number of editors gave thoughtful reasons for removing it, and cited relevant Misplaced Pages policies. Not claiming anywhere that we merely count !votes. I just thought the closure could have avoided inflammatory language, and that the reasons expressed by the 10 or so editors were not in the least silly. I also see no consensus rather than any consensus for Keep, and no consensus would also leave the article there. Edison 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which of the following rationales for deletion given in the discussion are both thoughtful (i.e., carefully considered as being applicable to the article) and supported by Misplaced Pages's policies?

1. The creator of the article is a racist. (Desiphral)
2. Those who vote to keep the article are racists. (Desiphral)
3. The mass media is racist. (Desiphral)
4. Being the subject of multiple independent published works in print and video, in three countries, over the period of five years, doesn't make one notable. (Mantanmoreland, Nabla, Trugster, Kuaichik)
5. Articles about <ethnic> criminals reinforce negative stereotypes about <ethnic>s. (Eukesh, Desiphral, Valery novoselsky, Kuaichik, RomanyChaj)
6. The article is an attack page. (RGTraynor, Murderbike)
7. Neither I nor any of my friends knows about her. (Resolute, Kuaichik, TheMightyQuill)

I can't speak for David, but in my estimation the above rationales, which accounted for much or most of the discussion, are all "silly". You, on the other hand, are to be commended as one of the few "delete" !voters who provided nothing but thoughtful, policy-grounded comments. Most of the concerns raised about WP:BLP were entirely legitimate; there was much agreement that it should be applied (resulting in the article being significantly revised, sourced, and verified) but also some disagreement as to how far it ought to be applied. —Psychonaut 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Spoiler RFA

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

Someone to keep an eye on

• Jere7my (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Question

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

Spoiler tag medcab case

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

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

Spoiler tag in the article, Sivaji_(film)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

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

m:OTRS edit

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

Misplaced Pages:Spoiler

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

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

And contempt. Don't forget contempt. --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

True. You're very keen on contempt, aren't you? --Kizor 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He eats babies too. Please, do continue to search out things to take offence at - David Gerard 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had figured that you of all people would have weathered this protracted, bitter argument well enough to maintain basic politeness, but I guess not. *Sigh* 'S so depressing. This isn't what any of us came here for. --Kizor 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bill: Previous Episode & The Bill: Next Episode

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

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

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

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

Provided one. --AnonEMouse 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article disputes and the press

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

Fair use images for deletion

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

Davidwr

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

Requesting an opinion before filing RFCU

David,

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

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

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

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

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

Comment blanking (not you)

Hello David,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:HidanBody1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on 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 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in yr wikipedia vandalizing yr articles

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

Window Snyder

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

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

BBC interview

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

Indeed, David, I just dropped by to note that you carried yourself and represented Misplaced Pages very well. —David Levy 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice interview. Condolences on having Clive Anderson come knocking on your door though. ;) Brad 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A Man In Black

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

Spoiler warning RFA

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

Hello!

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