User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hello! If you are here to lob ad-hominem attacks at me, you'll feel more at home on the mailing list. For those thinking I had another motive, let me repeat, my only motive was the motherfucking

GFDL

I don't feel like having a user page, so quit bugging me about it. Also, contrary to popular belief, I do not exist (and neither do you). I'm not quite as active as I used to be, but still occasionally edit and weild my administrative cudgel. Feel free to leave me a message (be aware that I quickly archive items nowadays, and reserve the right to revert and refactor at will). Talk Archives ~ Contributions ~ Admin Logs --Jeff

Oh, for fucks sake...

It took me three years to figure out this is a picture of a book.

Christ.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn, so it is. Deiz talk 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Good point/sleuthing. Never even occurred to me at all. Thought it was simply rays of light or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it is a book. Don't beat yourself up over it, normally you can't see it since it's behind the rest of the interface. From the few milliseconds I've seen it during page loads, I'd always figured it was an architectural detail, like an arched ceiling in a colonnade or something. Though at one point I remember I thought it looked like an angel's wings. --tjstrf talk 10:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I thought it was a banana or some kind of exotic fruit!

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I really thought it was a bivalve of some sort. +mwtoews 01:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought something along those lines, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are all very smart. I just thought the monitor was broken. Greswik 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

wow, i just randomly came to your talk page (actually, I went from the Fulton Road Bridge page, to EurekaLott's talk page, to here) and just realized this too...i always thought it was some abstract light ray thing. guess is where the "book" in "monobook" comes from - Minkus 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was some abstract ray of light spreading knowledge around the world as well. And when I clicked on your link, I thought, well this isn't going anywhere, there's no book here...and then ...Ahh...funny. I see now why it would take anyone 3 years... Apsedona 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, I thought it was just random shading and gradients and crap -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 09:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So it's not an Indian headdress then??!!--Alf ^melmac 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Alf looks shocked and somewhat dismayed

I'm with Alf on this. GASP! G1ggy! 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Lord. I thought it was some sort of sunshine shining rays of knowledge all over the world. You just blew my mind. the_undertow ^talk 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, I stumbled on here from the AN thread about BJAODN and, wow, this was news to me. I thought it was just pretty shaded lines. -M^ask? 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, AKMask. 'Course, I never looked at it outside of the header before. I mean, who thinks to do that? --InkSplotch 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Hi. I'm very disappointed in your decision to unilaterally delete BJAODN. Even if you're 100% right, you did this in a way that has created a lot of drama, sucking up energy and goodwill that could have been put to good use. And if people manage to put this back, you will have forced them into spending a lot of time cleaning up things that could have stayed scruffy. The GFDL is a contract that we won't rob people of credit, but to rob somebody they have to care. This could have waited until somebody complained about the their lack of credit, and then we could have fixed it piece by piece. Would you please consider reversing your decision? Thanks, William Pietri 07:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Could you help me understand why you see this as urgent? There are a variety of ways to proceed, but I want to make sure I don't cause trouble. Thanks, William Pietri 12:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in many places, and with the exception of people who simply do not understand the GFDL, it is largely agreed that BJAODN was a GFDL and Copyright Violation. My reasoning as stated in the AN thread is very clear. The deletion was not just policy enforcement, but ensuring we are compliant with the GFDL. We must follow the GFDL. There is no way around it. The GFDL isn't just policy, but the basis for the entire Project since day one. If it wasn't me this week, it would have been someone else next week. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I get that you see BJAODN as a GFDL violation. Some of it surely was, although I am skeptical about other bits. Regardless, I'm asking why this was urgent. Did somebody complain about lack of attribution? Was there some other factor that made this something we couldn't discuss and set a deadline for? Is there something that made BJAODN worse than your average copy-pasted article merge or split? Before I take any action, I want to be sure I'm taking everything into account. Thanks, William Pietri 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Any more thought on this? I'd still like a reply. Thanks, William Pietri 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, yes, but I'm being called out in half a dozen places including a wholesale slaughter on the Mailing List... (I'm not saying you are one of them, the above is perfectly level-headed and civil.)... But as each word I speak and every action I take will be attacked from all angles, and as I've said quite a bit on it, there is no advantage for me to say anything, at the moment, anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm disappointed. I understand you see no advantage to yourself, but I think there's a substantial advantage to Wikipedia as a whole in understanding the issues. I'm sorry you are declining to help with that, but I understand your perspective. Thanks for the reply. William Pietri 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I thought we'd established on the admin boards after my MFD, that a cleanup to followed by a mass deletion was needed to comply with GFDL (and to restore some common sense); however I thought it had been forgotten. Nice to see that somebody is still willing to be bold. --kingboyk 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on DRV, if you are interested. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On BJAODN being a violation of the GFDL, I believe you are incorrect. --The Cunctator 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative consensus suggests otherwise. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I want BJAODN to be deleted? No. Is it a violation of the GDFL? Yes. Is that a reason for it being deleted? Yes, and that's more important the WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks for doing a good job and sticking with policies. Could you link to the deletion review? I've like to say something in it. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are so inclined... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of all the negativity about the deletion of BJAODN

I believe you were right in doing so. The GFDL isn't something we enforce selectively. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For enforcing the GFDL by deleting the Bad (and I do mean BAD) jokes and other deleted nonsense pages, you have earned not only the eternal hatred of an anonymous teenage girl with a nonexistential sense of humor, but this barnstar as well! 151.197.193.94 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterpoint: whatever you meant to do by making your point, you are not acting as 'defender of the GFDL' but rather stirring the pot... there are helpful ways to address copyright concerns, and to address concerns of relevance to the encyclopedia; but this does not seem to have turned out to be one of them. If you want to effectively discuss GFDL concerns, please turn your attention to a more general case and to the broader GFDL issues implicit in collaborative remixing of text across articles and languages. +sj + 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay for you...

You've managed to stir up what will soon become more Arbcom drama. Did you really have to speedy delete them, instead of having a discussion first? -Amarkov moo! 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't call himself rouge for nothing! 151.197.193.94 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)