Misplaced Pages

User talk:David Gerard

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Gohde (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 2 March 2005 (WP:POINT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:51, 2 March 2005 by John Gohde (talk | contribs) (WP:POINT)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 18 Feb 2005)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff, please mention what it's about in the header.


Far-right Trolling

David we have 2 or three persistant nazi-sympathising trollers over on Anarchism talk page - ya know sam spade etc. Constantly off subject, abusive and ignorant of what goes on the article AND discussion page. Do you agree .... Is there anything we can do? Cheers >> max rspct 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably not in any summary fashion. If it's really getting nowhere, you may suggest working through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Best thing to do is see if you can get someone to mediate, to see if it can all be resolved without tears. Working effectively on Misplaced Pages can require more patience and assumption of good faith than many people realise ... I don't think Sam Spade can really be called a "troll" - see if you can assume good faith, hard as it probably seems right now - David Gerard 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation? But he has had this with so many other users. Not a troll? Well he's trolling and significantly uncollaborative... I don't think he should be barred but he is one of User:DNAgod's cohorts. max rspct 17:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ISBN and captions

You might note that you cannot put ISBN in an image caption without disrupting it . Well, you can with nowiki but that defeats the point.--Audiovideo 23:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, bugger! Sorry about that. I will hit preview. I will hit preview. I will hit preview. (× 100) - David Gerard 00:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dubious?"

Hello David,

The page Seasons & a Muse, Inc. (see the Misplaced Pages page) has been tagged "of dubious importance" by a volunteer "Uncle G." The tag, which has sat without evidence of address, for four days, seems insulting. Seeing the other listings in the "dubious" category, Uncle G has done Seasons & a Muse a great disservice.

On the subject of the tag, I reviewed the "Uncle G" talk page, subject "cleanup-importance." "Template:Explain significance" is far better. It is kinder and avoids the air of superiority of the former identifier.

How long does someone have to experience this offense? Please assist.

The tag is not policy but pretends to be - delete at will - David Gerard 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification

Hi David, since you were one of the arbitrators who accepted the Everyking case I am letting you know that I have requested a clarification on the ruling on the talk page for that arbitration, since it may not be on your watchlist. The link is: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested. Thanks, silsor 10:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Looking now - David Gerard 12:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

You are very kind!

"Dubious"?

Thank you very much David! We have one additional request, since the "User Contributions" is a special page, which only a "Meta" can revise or alter. We kindly request removal of the User Talk from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.126.173.124. The ISP location listed is a shared network. All User Talk postings relate to Uncle G's "dubious" tag, which, of course, you've shown to be quite bogus, and are therefore best wiped out of WikiExistence. Please assist! Thank you once again!

Update: our entire network, which is identified as shared by many, just received a very long "private" email response from "Antaeus Feldspar." He failed to address, nay truly acknowledge, the issues, which had been carefully deleted in User Talk. "Mr. Feldspar" must have sought history on the Contributions page. Yet another reason to remove all traces of the matter entirely. Mr. "Feldspar" mentioned something about "garbage bins," our founder and "one of your pubs." Our company and founder do not want this in our history. Perhaps it was a mistake to get involved in Misplaced Pages and our contributions ought to be eliminated altogether. Most disconcerting how some conduct themselves. Interesting that those who create anonymous namesakes often cause the most woe.

VFD

Hello. I've noticed that you're requesting that I as a user be deleted? May I ask what on earth brings you to say that? Just because you disagree with me on some issues doesn't mean that I don't deserve a voice here. I've been working very hard over the past weeks to classify every single article on the dead end pages list, and while most of those go in appropriate stub categories, several of them were nominated for VfD. Note that the vast majority of my submissions to VfD does get deleted because people agree with me. I'm all for civil debate, but asking for censorship of those who oppose you goes against the very core of Misplaced Pages. Radiant! 10:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Delete nominator" is a common response on VFD when a nominator appears to have gone batshit with a large number of bogus (non-policy) nominations. It would help if your nominations showed any sign of you having read Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. You know, like you're supposed to justify your nominations with according to the prominent large-font messages on WP:VFD. VFD is for nominations that match the policy - not just any article you happen to feel like nominating.
    • Well, I may 'appear to have gone batshit' to you, but if you had checked the past couple of deletion pages you would have seen that for most things I nominate, I do so with good reason, and that most of them get substantial support and do end up deleted. I have, of course, read the policy, as I have shown by citing the exact policy numbers to you when you asked. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it runs counter to policy.
I note also you placed this at the top of this page, ignoring the text immediately below asking you to add new things at the bottom. Well done - David Gerard 13:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And if you can't tell the words "censored" and "censured" apart, you should seriously consider whether you know the language well enough to be suggesting which articles should be deleted - David Gerard 00:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We both know you were trying to get me to shut up, and that constitutes a form of censorship. You can't seriously mean that people should pass a language test, or SAT or IQ test, before allowing to contribute or vote. Radiant! 10:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
FIGHT THE POWER!!!1!1! No, I was trying to get you to put on nominations that actually match Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. "Well, I think it should be deleted" isn't listed there either. And "censor" and "censure" don't mean anything like the same thing - David Gerard 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. Look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy. In the header 'Problems that may require deletion', find the very first criterium, which is 'Is not suitable for Misplaced Pages'. That line redirects to Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not. This page has a number of consensual suggestions of what may or may not be appropriate in WP. In particular, read the section 'Misplaced Pages is not a general knowledge base'. That should reveal the basis for whatever nomination you felt was inappropriate.
  • Also, you should really read up on Wikiquette, Civility and Assume good faith, because your recent behavior evidences none of the three. I have never been less than polite with you, yet you persist in making childish personal attacks on me and other people who happen not to share your particular POV. Radiant! 22:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

music markup

Hello david. Hope you do not mind me coming like this and messing up your talk page. We started a nice discussion on how to make our encyclopedia more musical and we reached some good conclusions. But there are only humble users voting there. I would love is we could get some power users/ administrators to hang a little about the page meta:Talk:Music markup so as to make it more... probable? to happen. Thanks a lot --21:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Power user? Oh, you mean Wikiholic! ;-) I have no idea if I can provide meaningful input, but flattery will get you as far as me looking at least ... - David Gerard 22:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1.0 appreciation

David, your 1.0 proposal is the best I have seen. It is in fact the only one I have seen that doesn't make me sick because of anti-success implications. How current are you and is it? In a word, where is the latest discussion happening now? Tom Haws 18:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Good question! Um ... a lot on wikien-l (the English Misplaced Pages mailing list). I've also been gathering relevant pages into Category:Misplaced Pages 1.0. Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team appears to be where the interested bunch hang out.
I've just started installing MediaWiki on my PC. Because if I want that rating feature in, it looks like I'm going to have to write it! - David Gerard 11:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good for you. And thanks for the response. I will read up a bit and direct more people that way. I do have to ask, though, if you aren't a little dismayed by a lot of what is being proposed by Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team? I have had a hard time getting up the will to join, and hoping they didn't represent the state of the discussion due to fundamental flaws in understanding what you very well pinpoint as dilettantism. Understanding dilettantism is key, and I hope to be contributing with you to this effort in the future. I posted my infant and ill-developed proposal (should you find the will to review it) at my front user page. I do, however, realize that "you can't win if you don't play", so I will by your example cheerfully join the Editorial team. Tom Haws 20:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board

I have noticed your thoughtful contributions to VfD (both ways!). Could I trouble you to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board. I am not lobbying for your vote either way, but no-one seems to be looking at this one (perhaps because it is a long article, and fairly technical), and I do believe it is worthy of some serious consideration. Thanks. HowardB 13:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a keep IMO, and I've said why - David Gerard 13:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification

Thanks for the clarification. We should know where we stand with respect to Everyking. I have mixed feelings about it, but having seen repeated testing of the boundaries by Everyking I think it's probably for the best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of boundary testing, it looks like he's asking at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested if he can revert anonymous editors. --Calton 08:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I have notieced that your RVs and edit summaries are violating the non-guideline:WP:POINT. Please stop them immediately! -- John Gohde 05:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dare I ask how? Snowspinner 06:19, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I too eagerly await details! - David Gerard 12:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just like you think. Because I said so. :WP:POINT is also clearly of no importance since it is not even a guideline.
"This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Misplaced Pages and does not carry provisions for enforcement, many Wikipedians agree with its recommendations and it has been endorsed in several cases by the Arbitration Committee. The hope by supporters is to obtain consensus and add it to the guidelines."WP:POINT (emphasis on does not, and NO I clearly do NOT) -- John Gohde 06:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever to me, I'm afraid. Also, the bit about no enforcement is not quite accurate - although it contains no direct provisions for enforcement, the AC has penalised people for breaking it egregiously. (Updated.)
It's a policy that does actually have a specific meaning - if you're going to go around to people's user pages claiming they've violated, you should be able to substantiate the assertion - David Gerard 09:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about Snowspinner's latest comments on his talk page regarding natural health. Snowspinner objects because it is not an infobox, but rather an attempt to make AM categories shinier and more special than everybody else's. Please explain how the particular infobox in question remotely does that, whatever that is supposed to be. -- John Gohde 14:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The question I asked was for details to substantiate your claim that "I have notieced that your RVs and edit summaries are violating the non-guideline:WP:POINT. Please stop them immediately!" - do you have any such substantiation? - David Gerard 15:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sure, no problem but only after you first explain how template:CamMenu was spamming and attempted to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes? -- John Gohde 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From his user page, it appears that this chap is Mr-Natural-Health. The purpose of the above nonsense is becoming clearer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compared to the behaviour of such recent arbitration subjects as Herschelkrustofsky or Robert the Bruce, John Gohde is just fine. He works very hard indeed at writing material he's a subject matter expert on to fill in Misplaced Pages's coverage nicely. However, he really doesn't get this "no article ownership" or "play well with others" thing at all. In my non-arbitrating and strictly as any old Wikipedian opinion - David Gerard 23:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking Ambi

Unblocking a fellow arbitrator is unsavory, especially considering you also failed to unblock the other "combatant". The revert war was clear, and deliberate, and you are devaluing the 3RR enforcement rule by unblocking. -- Netoholic @ 22:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

As discussed on IRC, I've unblocked the other guy too. Sorry, you're right, I should have at the time.
Although I like 3RR a lot, I don't tend to be a complete hardarse about the 24 hours and will almost always unblock if someone will admit they messed up - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)