Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 7 January 2006

See here for comments before May 1, 2005

See here for comments between May 1 and November 1, 2005

Birthday greetings

User:Jenmoa/birthday Sorry it's late! --Jen Moakler 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Tyler Kent

Hi David! I hope you don't mind, but I rewrote and expanded the article Tyler Kent, which you began last September. Check it out. RashBold 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I am actually doing some research on Anna Wolkoff, and I found some contradictory details on her year of death; one source says that she died shortly after release, one source says it's 1969, another source 1973. The picture you mentioned would be a great addition to the article. By the way, I found out one thing about Anna Wolkoff. When she was arrested on May 20, 1940, her arrest was witnessed and made an impression on a young boy named Len Deighton. How about that for a DYK? RashBold 23:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on her year of death. That's all I need to know. I'm gonna write the article on Anna Wolkoff. Again thanks. RashBold 00:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the clarification on Anna Wolkoff's death. I'm actually perplexed as to the various dates associated with her death. One thing puzzles me: what is her actual year of birth? As far as I have gleaned from my sources most of them gave it as 1902 although a source gives it as 1903. Also in the midst of my research an interesting name cropped up: the German-born actor Ferdinand "Ferdy" Mayne, who was known to be typecast as a villain in many film and TV appearances.

He was actually a German Jew who immigrated to Great Britain in the 1930s and worked as an undercover agent for MI5 and likewise infiltrated the Right Club. His cover was "blown" only after Joan Miller, another undercover agent, testified during the trial of Tyler Kent. RashBold 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Casualty (television)

Casualty: Sorry, but I disagree. The fact the the programme 'Casualty' (which I love) seems to have been hijacked by a 'gay pressure group' is well-known to the gay community (of which I am part). Even we find this ridiculous. True, the there are perhaps many more gays amongst the male nurses than among the general population, but nothing like the prevalence that is depicted in Casualty. It is OK to be gay, but not ram it down people's throats in this way. It's like 'GayTV', and we don't like it!. (unsigned comment from 80.43.2.141 moved from User page)

What I think is neither here nor there, although Casualty has had gay themes in episodes ever since it started. The point is that the article is not there for you to put in any opinions you might have about the programme. It's an encyclopaedia article which has to reflect every point of view. David | Talk 00:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall Anniversary Thing

I finally got back to the talk page where you left the comment on the Berlin Wall. While I agree that it is better than the previous wording, I fail to see what is wrong with Stalinism/Soviet Stalinism - no one can reasonably contest that Stalin was not present in the USSR, few would question the notion that he was important (if not catastrophic), and most who think it was the fall of communism consider Stalinism to be equivalent to or a subset of communism (which existed in the USSR) anyway.

Yes, it is too late for this year. Silly me >_<

204.60.171.230 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Johnsmithlabour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnsmithlabour.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Agnte 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2 or the Requests for comment/TDC

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC.

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have also broken the spirit of 3RR and blatantly abused your admin powers by reverting to your preferred POV version with your revert button. Please do not preach to me or pontificate with your sermons. --84.64.102.234 12:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The rollback function is no different to editing a previous version of the page. What I have done is perfectly acceptable. Do not revert George Galloway again. David | Talk 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I will revert as I see fit. I am an editor, just as you are. We both have equal rights here. Have fun editing Councellor. --84.64.102.234 12:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice message ;)

You are abusing your powers again. This is a content dispute that you are engaged in, not vandalism, not disruption, not any other violation of policy. You have violated 3RR yourself, yet you have the gall to threaten to block an IP address who is in disagreement with your content. This is about the content and quality of an article, do not block those you are in disagreement with, and do not violate 3RR. As an Admin, you should know that in your sleep. --84.68.83.110 12:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:IAR. David | Talk 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The Admins fallback response to abuse of power. (Ref Lord Acton) - I rest my case. --84.68.83.110 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What it means is that the rules are only there to facilitate the writing of an encyclopaedia. To the extent that they start acting against that goal, they must be forgotten. Your attempt to remove sourced and highly relevant information from George Galloway is not acting in the interests of writing a better encyclopaedia. You need to learn how to co-operate with other editors. David | Talk 13:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. I am attempting to write an encyclopaedia as well, as you are. We have a disagreement about content, and your content was not "sourced and highly relevant", it was your POV. I disagreed with that and it was within the boundaries of the WP policy that I could edit that material.I can co-operate with anyone, as long as the terms of that co-operation are equal - in other words you do not resort to your blocking powers just because you have them and disagree with a contributor. That is exactly what you have just done. --84.68.83.110 13:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that my version is POV is ludicrous. The analysis of Respect's general election performance is from the Nuffield study in their introduction. The placing in the 1986 NEC ballot is a fact based on the election results. The vote of no confidence from the CLP is a fact. The rest of the edit is likewise entirely factual. Your blanket reverting was disruptive and resulted in you being blocked. You have never argued for your edits, just reverted. David | Talk 17:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nuffield Study might be factual, but is irrelevant to this article. You are pushing your POV. It only appeared after my revert of your earlier intervention - something I have equal authority to do as you. Your blanket counter reverting was disruptive and disappointing behaviour from an "admin". You then cunningly added small edits plus your reverts to avoid 3RR - much more disappointing. You are "gaming the system", contrary to policy. Your block of whatever IP it was is also contrary to policy. Please explain and justify the reasons for the block. This is a content dispute, you are an involved "admin", you should not be blocking. You have violated 3RR several times. You have attempted to avoid this by "gaming the system". You have abused your "powers". You have attempted to invoke WP:IAR when challenged - what a joke. This is about the content of the article - I will be reviewing shortly. --84.66.251.169 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I await the occasion when you enter into discussion about the edits, as it is now nearly 8 hours since they were made. But please do not try to pretend that all the anon IPs in the 84.6*.*.* range are not the same person. Disingenuousness only works if it is plausible. David | Talk 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have discussed the edits, it is you that has not. I have never claimed to be anyone else, my edits will support that. As I said before, I have no control over my IP, it seems to change randomly. The only disingenuity here is on your part. --84.66.251.169 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You have never discussed the substance of the edits. Meanwhile why not try getting an account instead of being an anon? David | Talk 18:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You have also studiously avoided answering my questions, like a true politician. --84.66.251.169 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NPA, which you have actually broken several times, often in edit summaries. You haven't actually asked me any questions, which is why I have not answered them. I have no desire to continue this conversation anyway since it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. David | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop quoting policy to me that I have not broken - (please provide diffs to prove otherwise). I have not violated WP:NPA or any other policy. You, however, have violated several policies, 3RR and blocking amongst them in pursuit of your POV. For an "admin" that is pretty poor form.

You ask me Why not get an account? I have observed this snakepit from the outside for long enough thanks. Some key words spring to mind:

• Power
• Corruption
• Control
• Vanity
• Cliques
• Cabal
• Dictatorship
• Madness

I have no desire to fall into the pit and be poisoned.

Best wishes. --84.66.251.169 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My first question was Please explain and justify the reasons for the block (see earlier) --84.66.251.169 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You continue to abuse your "admin" powers by blocking someone you are in a content dispute with. Please stop. Please provide evidence of my violation of WP:NPA - you cannot. Please provide evidence of any other alleged transgressions against policy - you cannot. Please provide justification for your block of whatever Ip I had last time - you cannot. Please behave like a normal person and stop this ridiculous agenda. Best wishes again. --84.68.167.228 19:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Truce

This is ridiculous, let's call a halt. Let the record stand and we can thrash things out on the proper channels. --84.68.167.228 19:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:12

Conflict of interest

Could you please clarify whether you are currently a councillor, and at what point you were aproached by or approached indigo public affairs.

None of your business. David | Talk 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

One simple question

Are you aware of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule? AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, looking at your talk page I see you are. AlistairMcMillan 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule on George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: 21:34, 1 December 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:32, 1 December 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:36, 2 December 2005
• 4th revert: 00:52, 2 December 2005

AlistairMcMillan 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 10:21, 27 November 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:16, 27 November 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:27, 27 November 2005
• 4th revert: 22:46, 27 November 2005
• 5th revert: 22:55, 27 November 2005

Do you have any respect for the rules here? AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR I have more respect for the facts and for fair articles than for the rules. You appear to have broken one by blocking someone you were involved in a dispute with, which is a misuse of admin privileges. You've also made a personal attack. In any case if you wanted to know what community consensus is on George Galloway, why not file an RFC in the politics section? David | Talk 09:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly no repect for the rules, I just wasted time posting this on WP:AN/3RR :(

I see you beat me to it Alistair. David, you blocked me a few days ago while you were in dispute with me. Your pontification is a tad rich. --84.68.228.215 09:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked you for disruptive editing and after warning you. Neither applies in this case, and as I have just verified, I did not actually break the 3RR because the third and fourth 'reverts' were not reverting to the same version. David | Talk 09:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, hiding behind WP:IAR when necessary and lobbing in a spurious mini edit whilst reverting to avoid 3RR are disappointing behaviour for an Admin. The "disruptive editing" you refer to is just a widely used Admin ploy to win disputes, I see it all the time. And please, do not try to classify this as a "personal attack", another typical Admin tactic, because there is nothing personal in these observations. It is endemic amongst Admins on this endeavour. WP:TINC --84.67.198.173 09:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on George Galloway is quite clear. Please point to any other editor on the Talk page who supports your insistence that Saddam needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of George Galloway. As far as I can see, you are in favour and DanielM, JamesMLane, GrahamN, Fergie and myself all oppose it. 1 to 5 seems pretty damn clear to me. AlistairMcMillan 09:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget me :) which makes it 1 to 6. No idea why my IP keeps switching and, no, I will not get an account - see my comments on the snakepit above. --84.67.198.173 09:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Hastings Lees-Smith

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Hastings Lees-Smith. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Misplaced Pages's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Hastings Lees-Smith? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your copyediting

I just read over the copyedit you did on John Cura. Very nice bit of work! I don't suppose I could ask you to look over one or two other biography pages, could I? :) -JohnDBuell 13:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary

I think you are mistaken about user:Chaosfeary. Please take another look. He is engaged in a massive campaign of moving pages, mostly to assert british rather than american spelling, it seems. This is very disruptive, and creates lots of double-redirects. Also, isn't there a policy that at least recommends against americanizing or britishizing spelling?--Srleffler 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It's being bold. The policy (which is disputed) is that an article should keep in the same version of English as it started, but that is disputed by some people as a bias towards American spelling given that most non-British specific articles are likely to have been started by Americans. It's possible Chaosfeary could engage in disruptive editing or violate the 3RR but it's not simple vandalism. David | Talk 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but of course if everyone is free to do what Chaosfeary was doing, the result would be an endless ugly edit/revert/page move war. There are plenty of Americans who would be more than happy to Americanize everything on Misplaced Pages. Fair or not, the status quo policy is probably the wisest approach—leave regional spellings as they are, as long as they are consistent on each page.--Srleffler 00:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

R101

I completely agree...I don't know why I didn't see that. How do I do the merge and re-direct...I'm still new at this thing.Cwilson336 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Local authorities

Yeah, that would be better. And would cover Greater London Authority too. Morwen - Talk 19:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

TVI AKA Television interferance

Hi, I have just finished a long editting job on this page, if you have any expereince in radio electronics / communications equipment you might want to read the page and consider adding more to it. I think that it might be a good idea to have a series of wiki pages which would allow the reader (in the event that they are plauged by TVI) to diagnose and cure it form themselves.Cadmium 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Block

Thank you very much for the message. I will remember who to ask if this happens again!! . doktorb 15:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal needs banning

User talk:86.128.85.158 was banned for vandalism on 10th December 2005 and has continued after his ban on the 11th Dec 2005. I think he should be banned again. Thanks — Wackymacs 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

hullo

Just a message to say I have sent you a Misplaced Pages email about someone ban-evading so please read it when you can - I would've posted it here but I would like to remain discreet :) Thanks

Oh and don't let david cameron trounce you too hard in parliament (bwahaha) :) --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(new message reply)

What I meant is, look specifically at the one where he edits is reverted than the anon IP reverts to his verison again - after he is accused of vandalism he (as the anon) says "*I* have never vandalised, look at my contributions" etc.. In the Catwoman article history - By saying this he is saying he is also DrBat, because he is saying he as DrBat, is not a vandal --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

your article

It was a sourced quote!

sourced, I tell you --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 23:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Delta Chi

Sorry I guess I missed that. I asked for him to be banned as that user has been doing nothing but adding nonsense to fraternity articles -Reid A. 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

David, please be advised that there's a vandalism spree coming from IPs in the range that you just warned. They hit Crips, Stanley Tookie Williams, and my user page, usually. I'm blocking on sight now. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh

Since you're a Mac user, you may be interested in joining WikiProject Macintosh to improve Mac-related articles on Misplaced Pages. — Wackymacs 20:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining! We're currently focusing on the Apple Computer article. Our old focus, Apple Macintosh, is currently a FA candidate and you can vote here. We’re all honored that you want to join our WikiProject. --HereToHelp (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Block of 72.145.120.7

I noticed you unblock to indef block this user, unforunately Lbmixpro got sandwiched in the middle with a 24 hour block, so your block will be ineffective Log. Though I believe indef blocking IP's is generally frowned upon so a multi-month block might be more appropriate (haven't looked at this user at all, so please ignore me if I'm missing something here) --pgk 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

New Template

Thought you might like these new templates:

Enjoy! --t-bte288-c 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lordwidgery.jpg has been listed for deletion

RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent bid for adminship, which passed 64-2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:25, Dec. 17, 2005

1 small step

See the talk page on it. NASA examined the tape recently. Static obscured the "a", but he said it.

Small step

I saw an item on the news, & at the time, I didn't anticipate five or more years later I'd be online in an encyclopedia discussing it. Doubtless NASA's site will say something to it.

As for deleting from my talk page, whose page is it? I see no point keeping if it's not of interest, in particular if I have to keep scrolling through it. Trekphiler 20:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Norma Major-Wagstaff-Johnson

Thanks for a quick edit in reply to my post about Dame Norma's surname. Nicely referenced and a rapid response! Cheers! Peeper 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Wikipedians by politics

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

John Forrest

This is a major page, and one of my pet subjects. The sudden page move surprised me, and I suspect I over-reacted. In future, I would encourage you to discuss page moves of important pages before taking action. However, now that I have calmed down I see that you have made a fairly compelling case for a move and correction. There is a general consensus that, as a disambiguated article on an Australian politician, the article should be at John Forrest (Australian politician). I will perform the move shortly. I apologise for my initial reaction. Snottygobble | Talk 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Daniel,

Homophobic Wikipedians/disputed user conduct section

Dear David: I observe that you added back the "homophobic Wikipedians" sections, retitled "disputed user conduct", at Misplaced Pages:LGBT noticeboard. I strongly feel that this section should be removed, due to issues of potential witch-hunting and the appearance of a black-list of users arbitrarily viewed to fall within the category of having behaved in a homophobic manner. In particular, it gives a "cabal" appearance of a list of users whom retaliation may be sought. Should any cases of homophobic conduct occur on Misplaced Pages, I am sure that you would agree the best way for it to be dealt with would be via the dispute resolution channels listed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution promptly (most probably, to the Arbitration Committee) and thus this section is not only on dangerous ground but also superfluous and potentially detrimental to an expeditious handling of the matter. I will not edit war with you over this, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would remove the section based on these reasons. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Source needed for Image:Blairjsmithfuneral.jpg

I tagged this with {{no source}}, since there was no source information available in the image's summary page. Could you please provide a source for this image (URLs are preferable) so that we can more accurately tag the image? — EagleOne\ 03:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Self"

It took me a few minutes to figure out what you meant by this.
I clicked to your user page and felt a bit stupid. I honestly had not heard your name before, and I apologize for my apparent flippancy. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the INFID members will once again interpret my words as an underhanded denial of a conspiracy against them, but I've already decided to stop talking to them. In any case, pleased to meet you, and I wish you success in your political endeavors. I'm guessing that the "iv" in your username indicates "...the Fourth"? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:09, Dec. 29, 2005

Thanks for your note. Yes, you're right about the IV (see User:Dbiv#Why is my usename 'dbiv'?. I think it's becoming fairly obvious that any time spent on INFID is wasted on a bunch of trolls. David | Talk 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again I should read more before asking such easy questions. Reading further, I see you're a fellow administrator here. I'm curious how one balances dedication to wikipedia with a prestigious career (and sleep for that matter), as that's an area that typically gives me problems, e.g. I should be out looking for a better job, but I'm glued to the computer screen instead, and then even when I'm at work. Additional congratulations to you for that. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:29, Dec. 29, 2005

Re comment on my user page

Thanks for the heads up! --Kwekubo 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

POTW

If you'd like to see goading, just check POTW's contribs. In his past 50 edits, only 4 have not been directed towards trolling against me. POTW's vote against Locke Cole is about the farthest thing from good faith I have ever seen on the history of Misplaced Pages, and I can't feel satisfied unless I know that this will be recognized. karmafist 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

James Sadleir

Hello David. I've created a stub on James Sadleir, and wondered if knew anything more about this fellow (dates, nature of his mis-dealings). I ran across your site while putting the initial article together. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for your generous acknowledgement. Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What have you done?

You recently reverted User:Daniel Brandt - I'm sure that before the sun sets, your name will be on the black list along with the rest of us ;-) Izehar 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If I don't get on there very soon I shall be very disappointed in myself! David | Talk 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You did, SqueakBox 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"great userbox genocide"

Hi David. I noticed this phrase on your user page and I would like to ask you to reconsider it. "Genocide" is an incredibly loaded term, and using it lightly can come across as insensitive to the suffering of millions. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT interest userbox

Hi! After participating in some discussion about userboxes, I've decided to create a userbox specifically for people who are interested in LGBT issues. I like this userbox a lot because it doesn't force people to take a stand on LGBT-related political issues or declare a particular identity, but just expresses a common interest in editing LGBT-related articles on Misplaced Pages. I saw your name on the list of people who are interested in this kind of thing at the LGBT notice board, and I am inferring from your userpage that this is a type of userbox you might support, so I thought I'd let you know about this one in case you want to list it on your user page. I am hoping that people will see it, click the link to the notice board, and become more involved in editing LGBT-related articles on Misplaced Pages. The userbox is at Template:User LGBT interest. - AdelaMae 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

userbox policy

Hi- I noticed your support of policy #6. Its contents have been incorporated into #4, and we intend to remove #6 and #7 to declutter your page. Provided you agree with its contents, it would be useful if you could shify your vote from #6 and #4. Deano (Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Dbiv, I've started noticing your name again on various pages. It's good to see you're still around! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The rollback button

That would be because the button shouldn't be labeled "rollback vandalism" (and in fact isn't any more). I am presently writing explanations in several places including WP:VPT, please join the discussion. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm sorry, indeed I didn't mean to. I'll watch out next time. Larix 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User box TfD

You are voting to delete a user box you have (atheist). This is hypocrisy. I realize that you subst:ed yours or copied the code, but that still means that you were dependent on the original box for your code. While you may have the technical know how to create boxes yourself, many others do not. Your vote is essentially a vote to create two classes of Wikipedians with different rights: those who can write their own code to create boxes and those who are denied the pleasure of user boxes by their lack of fluency in code. WAvegetarian (email) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for responding in so civil a manner. I'm sorry to have brought the discussion to your user page. I was rather irate and feeling argumentative at the time I wrote that due in large part to outside RL concerns and shouldn't have gotten involved in a debate in that state of mind. Looking back at it, I agree that it was hyperbole. I have come to agree with you that party and religious affiliation categories will do more harm than good and have removed them from my user page. Back to positive contributions to the encyclopedia. WAvegetarian (email) 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Kennedy

Just a note that I wasn't ignoring your protection tag - it wasn't there when I clicked edit and the system added my contribution rather than flagging an edit conflict. Glued to BBC News 24 now... --Whouk (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it, I just wanted to start the section without putting anything in it and the {{inuse}} tag was the first one I could think of. David | Talk 14:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you removed the sentence about "immediate press speculation" that he could be leader in future from the two articles. While I don't think it's worth restoring, there was speculation - albeit media, not press - from Nick Robinson who said exactly that on BBC News 24. --Whouk (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

You aren't supposed to list RFA's until the nominee has accepted and answered the questions. Guettarda 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you aren't supposed to list them until the nominee has accepted. Read the rubric again. In any case WMC has now answered the questions. It's unfair to RFA voters who have not spotted the nomination in Recent Changes to delay listing it on the RFA page, given the voting deadline. David | Talk 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of not listing them until they are accepted is that people would vote "oppose, hasn't answered questions" - so whatever the wording, a nom isn't really accepted until the questions are answered. As for timing - timing should start with listing. But mostly - rollback implies vandalism, an edit summary as to why I was wrong would have been a lot less jarring. Guettarda 16:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda has a very good point. Per, Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Reverting, one should not

"...use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary."

Also note that well-meaning contributors may be offended by you using the rollback against them. Please refrain from doing that in the future. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete storm in a teacup. Although the revert click is intended for vandalism, it's no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert. I used it in this case because it saved time and because it ought to have been very obvious why it had suddenly become appropriate to go back to my edit (because WMC had now answered the questions and should be listed without delay) I think WMC (whom I've met) is probably one of the best known Wikipedians and his last RFA was quite well publicised. I'm afraid I can't work out what it had to do with Oleg Alexandrov though no doubt he has good reasons for wading in. David | Talk 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not fuss over nothing. You are abusing a tool you are supposed to use only against vandals. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a fuss over nothing; a revert through using rollback has exactly the same effect as a manual revert. But I really can't be bothered to reply to you in any more detail as I'm trying to improve articles and find this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless. David | Talk 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That some other people also use the rollback button for non-vandalism is a lame excuse. You used the rollback button against a good-faith edit by a fellow Misplaced Pages editor; that is not acceptable.

I don't intend to take more of your time which both you and me can use more productively. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "against" the edit. This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopaedia, not a competition. The old edit was superseded because WMC now had to be listed. I still think this a fuss over nothing. David | Talk 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)