User talk:David Gerard

Wikimedia Foundation

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

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

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

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

---

MediaWiki:Copyright

Hi, you inserted a HTML error:

your code:

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

correct code:

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

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

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

Oversight

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

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

London meetup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Able and Baker on deletion review

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

West Orange

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

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

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

KDE is not ferret-compatible

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

Lembit Opik photo

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

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

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

Commons and reuse of GPL/LGPL contents

Hello David,

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

Cheryl Cole

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

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

Marti Pellow

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

#wikipedia-en-admins

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

Looks like Interiot has taken care of it, so no worries. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcginnly's block

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

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

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

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

Don't I know you from somewhere...

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

Help needed with posting to wikitech-l

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

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

Random smiley

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

Checkuser

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swinford

Hi David, I removed the "sprot" tag from this article because it was edited by a user from an IP address and is not listed at WP:PP. Can you let me know if what I did was the right thing to do in a situation like this? Thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and OTRS

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

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

OTRS

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

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

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

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

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

Spaink image

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

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

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

Uncyclopedalated.

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

Wikipedia fundraising

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

FYI

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

Durin is really doing the figures thing at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard

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

He really has gone into great detail analysing RFA there.

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

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

You're going to Siberia, USA!

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

Brick 'O common sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embarassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times article

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

Essjay

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

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

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

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

RFC/Essjay

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

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

Parody article re: Essjay/Jimbo

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

Deletion of User:Essjay/RFC

David,

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

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

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

—Doug Bell ^talk 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit conflict]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imposter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Young

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

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

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

Shelby 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelby,

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

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

Shelby 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WM

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

WikiProject updates

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

A recent edit war...

Hello,

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

• "Remove suspected meatpuppet"
• "Remove trolling"

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

Thank-You for understanding,

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

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

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

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

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

Official Pollicy!!!!1

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

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

IRC

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

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

Re: Work in progress

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

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

FYI

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

P-Basses

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

Thank you

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

Want to run something past you.

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

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

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

WikiProject

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

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

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

FAR of Humpback Whale

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

Peter Dobbie

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

GNU/Linux naming controversy FAR

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

AfD nomination of Omegatrend

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

The Venetians (Australian Rock Band)

• David,

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

"jawdropping idiocy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Atom feeds

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

Hi

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

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

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

My final comment on Danny's RfA...

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

Help with sockpupettry

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

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

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

Possible vandalism by User:COFS

David, would you please take a look at this. [3] I posted a couple links and COFS removes it claiming that it is commercial promotion. These are both freezone (independent scientology) groups.--Fahrenheit451 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the problem with RFA

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

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

Thanks for the comments on my RFA

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

User:216.165.158.7

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

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

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

Erroneous RefBot block

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks

Please make your point without namecalling[4]. I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. As an admin you should already know this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

When asking people to be civil, it is important to be civil yourself. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Peace. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

David, this[5] is not one bit better, it is also a personal attack if you put a little conditional before it. Please stop commenting negatively towards the contributors, they are volunteers, and we have a policy to protect them from insulting comments. You are an admin, act like it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Endorse block

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

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

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

Re: "un-wiki"

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

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

Capitalised gibberish

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

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

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

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

The Discussion.

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

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

Apologies

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

Bizarre

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

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

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

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

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

Checkuser

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

In vain

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

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

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

A descriptive header

Today's featured policy [purge] Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it. (more...)

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

Your comment on ANI

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

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

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

Template:No GFDL

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

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

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

RFAr Piotrus

Hi, David. I have posted a question for you on the RFAR talk,[6] I hope you will reply. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).