User talk:David Gerard/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004



Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 16:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Speaking of amateurish presentations on the web .... EBM ... Ha, ... Hah, Ha! -- Mr-Natural-Health 00:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A learning experience[edit]

Hey, it's cool when you learn something new, isn't it? I'd not heard of the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel before at all! I suspect there's still a world's first for that stretch of Underground between Paddington and Farringdon - something pedantic about being originally constructed sub-surface, where the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel was originally open-cut. However, in all honesty, I'm not inclined to amend the Metropolitan Line article to reflect this, as it seems excessive! If someone wants to take it up in the Hammersmith & City Line article, good luck to them! - MykReeve 17:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I've amended it to "oldest underground railway still running" ;-) - David Gerard 19:58, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)


I replied to you over at Talk:Gentoo. Pakaran. 16:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

It is indisputable!

There is NO Edit War in Alternative medicine, nor is the content in dispute. You guys are playing dirty. And, of course, all of my editing is made in order to improve articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This must be some curious usage of "no edit war" heretofore unheard-of on Wikipedia. - David Gerard 15:09, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

The references in GarageBand[edit]

I noticed you removed my references in the article "GarageBand". It took a bit of work to do the research, not to mention to make it APA-conformative. Was there a reason for this action?

Also, it appears that you took out my mentions of the sales expectations for GarageBand. If this is considered irrelevant, I would like to know why, so that I may not waste my time by writing more of the same thing in the future.

Vespristiano 01:42, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

The article has since been considerably hacked around. If there's a way to add them that flows with the article, feel free to reinsert them - David Gerard 01:03, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Miles Vorkosigan[edit]

Thanks for your mopping up. I wasn't quite sure what to do with that section, it works much better at the beginning. --Phil 14:32, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Rutherford[edit]

Thank you for helping out with the article. The only problem I had is that you removed 2/3 external links leaving only 'overview of oxygen' (or something like that). I think the link title 'overview of daniel rutherford' should've been kept. If you have a reply, please post it on my talk page. Ilyanep 18:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page and Talk:Daniel Rutherford - David Gerard 20:11, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Aussie Rules[edit]

Hi David, I see you have edited on the Aussie Rules page. Can you help out with a query, please? Some bright spark of an American had put up a page called fullback which kind of assumed the only game called football is the laughable apology for a game they play here. I have promptly added in descriptions of what full backs get up to in soccer and rugby, but I didn't know whether the position exists in Aussie Rules. If it does, would you be able to add the information, for completeness' sake? thanks. seglea 06:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I must admit I don't know that much about the game! But a quick google on "aussie rules" fullback shows it is a position. Do the search and you'll know as much as me ;-) The fullback article as it stands looks OK to me, knowing not much about the subject ... - David Gerard 11:53, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great... I won't pretend to understand it in full but at least I now know what I don't understand! seglea 17:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Good changes on Goth. —Morven 16:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You wait. I have hardly begun to ramble. Just see what happens if I draft any other twenty-year veterans ... - David Gerard 19:21, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised it hasn't happened till now. Of course, I've witnessed the spectacle of several twenty-year veterans utterly disagreeing with each other on the whole lot, so ... —Morven 20:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've answered you on Talk:Goth :-) - David Gerard 21:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

French law on...[edit]

Anthere and I have managed to agree on "French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools" which is the longest of the proposed titles. Would this be OK with you? Anthere did point out that there people are rumbling about extending this law to the entire public sector, which would make the "in schools" bit of the title even more important.  :) fabiform | talk 19:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That one's fine by me :-) - David Gerard 20:30, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

David, could you tell my why you deleted the item that i submitted to Current Events? OneVoice 15:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where did you find 9M euros...Haaretz reports $74Million unaccounted for. OneVoice 16:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See February 11 2004 for Suha Arafat 9 million euro ($11 million) money laundering probe. Did you get a copy of the OLAF report? I would like to read it. OneVoice 16:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

are you saying that it did not happen or that you would like to find an alternate news source. if the first please tell me why. if the second please do so. OneVoice 23:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, the second choice is for you to find a news source that is vaguely credible. Getting news from "Israel News Network" is like putting articles from a random Slashdot clone on 'Current Events'. - David Gerard 23:51, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

It is a shame that the two links regarding the collapse of the section of wall supporting the path to the Mughrabi Gate (sp?) focus on the recriminations by various parties rather than the archelogical or structural issues regarding the wall. The picture from the BBC is much better because it shows the area of collapse so clearly. The INN picture showed the path better, but did not show the area of collapse. The BBC shows the area of collapse but not the path. I would guess, could be wrong, that 3 photos are needed by anyone who has not been there to understand: one photo to show the location of the wall, path and gate vis-a-vis the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, one to show the path, and one to show the collapsed section. Perhaps two would be sufficient...the path photo might not be necessary if the first photo was to be taken from the south west at some elevation. I hope that we can continue to work together to make Wikipedia better. Thank you. OneVoice 14:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised that you re-added the NYT links...NYT does not seem to be popular here. I have read it is because of the required free registration. OneVoice 16:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it's worth linking, but really only as secondary links for that reason - David Gerard 16:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop deleting news items just because you don't like the news. // Liftarn

If you think that's why, you should read up the page. I did the same for OneVoice's pro-Israeli spam on Current events. I'm cutting the propaganda pieces when they're propaganda pieces. A press release is not "news". - David Gerard 16:12, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'm very well aware of the source, but regardless of the source it's still news. // Liftarn


There does seem to be a sudden influx of racist fools here on Wikipedia (usually with anonymous IP addresses) recently, isn't there? I noticed that on alt.revisionism recently, someone posted a plea for revisionists to come here and "correct" the entries dealing with certain subjects. But the more some things change, the more they stay the same...all you have to do is say the word "Zionist" and they start screaming. "Jews! Jews! Jews!" How predictable.  :) --Modemac 01:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Praise "Bob!")

Indeed. There's not a lot of urgency. Also, it helps anti-Nazis get their references thoroughly in line. - David Gerard 12:18, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC) (Hail Xenu!)


Not exactly.

Any white separatist is NOT the same as being "Neo-Nazi", whatsoever.


Peacock wording? Sam Spade 20:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - David Gerard 21:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Australian indie rock[edit]

Thanks for the edits to Tasmanian Aborigines. Small world - noticed you write for - as a side note I used to mix for a tas band called the Stickmen and occasionally the Sea Scouts... Maybe time to start Indie Rock, Australia???

- Jgritz 12:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also used to do a fanzine (Party Fears) in Perth in the '80s. There's about a ZILLION Australian indie rock articles I must write if I'm ever in the same country as my fanzine pile again. I'm also looking for copies of PF to scan and rerelease on the net, if you know anyone with copies and a scanner! - David Gerard 13:04, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Models[edit]

Thanks for further unopinionating The Models. I did a quick job on it - it was worse before! dmmaus 08:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

heh. One thing I really want to do is do articles on just about any Australian punk or indie band with a single or better. Must write up some lists ... - David Gerard 09:47, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


should really redirect to scientist as in the profession, as that's the meaning most of the links to this page intend to go (see "what links here" for "scientists" to see what i mean). i mean it's more likely that somebody would wikilink scientists in the sense of the profession than mean an australian indie rock band. redirecting to The Scientists in this case kind of violates the wikipedia principle of least surprise Clarkk 12:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) I was going to say much the same thing, but Clarkk beat me to it, so I'll just suggest adding a disambig link to The Scientists from scientist (or making scientists a disambig page, but I prefer the former solution). -- 12:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Those links [[scientists]] should really be [[scientist]]s. Plurals should not be redirects - it's completely unnecessary in MediaWiki syntax. Which is why the redirect to scientist certainly surprised me! I've fixed all the links I saw. - David Gerard 12:51, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
hmm, that's certainly not my understanding of wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Redirect specifically lists redirects having this purpose, under:
What do we use redirects for?
it lists:
i mean it's fine to avoid the redirects by using the [[scientist]]s format, but serendiptious linking like this should still go to the expected page. Clarkk 13:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I thought a moment about "least surprise," and made "scientists" a redirect to List of scientists - assuming that if you typed in "scientists", you'd expect some actual scientists rather than a definition. - David Gerard 13:12, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

William Shakespeare[edit]

I think the current change to Shakespeare is the best. I hope you agree. Owen&rob 23:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having them both the same size is an excellent idea - David Gerard 10:07, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Quackery and homeopathy[edit]

Are you suggesting that homeopathy is inherently fraudulent, by insisting it be linked from quackery? I'm curious about your reasoning. heidimo 15:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it's prone to it. Which is why it's a "see also." - David Gerard 17:11, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Don't you think all kinds of medicine are prone to abuse? Or are you suggesting homeopathy is especially so? heidimo 17:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Like all allegedly medical practices which are unmitigated bunk, it is prone to blatant fraud -David Gerard 18:14, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds highly POV to me. heidimo 15:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to my user talk page, rather than the article. Is it or is it not more prone to blatant fraud than conventionally regulated medical practice? - David Gerard 16:25, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that your user page should not be POV, only that to single out homeopathy as more fraudulent than most is POV in an article where POV is to be avoided. No, I am not about to accuse one form of medicine as being more prone to fraudulence than another. The article is about fraudulent medicine in general and putting homeopathy as a link from quackery suggests that all homeopathy is quackery. I guess that is your intention, if you consider homeopathy to be "unmitigated bunk." I have no interest in trying to change your opinion of homeopathy. My interest is in the accuracy and NPOV of the article. heidimo 17:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll jump in by stating what needs to be - homeopathy is outright quackery. It is based upon a premise that flies in the face of all known physical laws. If homeopathy were true, then all physicists would be out of a job. Not only should a link be made between homeopathy and quackery, homeopathy should be listed under the title. TimothyPilgrim 14:10, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Quackery at present mainly addresses knowing quackery, as opposed to sincere practice by the hard of thinking. Current version of the article has a line added pointing out that unregulated medical practices are prone to quackery, which is not as strongly as I would state it but I can live with - David Gerard 14:29, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


David, I'm sorry, but to not even discuss edits on this subject is pretty revealing. NPOV requires acknowledging even the existence of alternative views. Removing edits that did not undercut one view, they simply presented the alternative, is bad enough, but deleting even two links discussing the evidence is highly POV. I've been studying this field for years (even subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer) and observed these non-delusional craft in flight. Selective bias has no place in wiki. Kindly practice civility and discuss first, but I do intend to revert it. Chris Rodgers 08:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The edits struck me as the work of a conspiracy theorist, and I fear the above doesn't do a lot to alleviate that impression. "pretty revealing"? I'm sure. But I do have a pile of edits to make to the article in question, so we'll see if we can't hammer out something - David Gerard 12:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hope we can do so constructively, but your very objection proves my point. Dismissing believers ipso facto as "conspiracy theorists" (though the wiki entry on this is useful) is itself the loaded language and bias I objected to. I've known military guys who watched craft take off, when intercepted, at 10-40,000 mph and turn on a dime. Does that make them crazies who rant on about the Illuminati? Absurd. People like me bring methodical, scientific reason to a rare yet objective and un-conventionally explainable phenomenon, -- and we meet bias and dogma parading in the stolen garb of "science" which refuses to even consider the nature or possibility of political agenda. Flawed and naive beyond description.
Your mistake is classic circular reasoning. A UFO believe can not possibly write reliably on the subject because he's crazy. How do we know he's crazy? -- Because he's a UFO believer; QED. Fallacies do not benefit Wiki.
We should probably copy this discussion to the page itself, maybe tomorrow. Chris Rodgers 08:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

References in "GarageBand"[edit]

At 14:26, 2004 Jan 20, you deleted my list of references in the article "GarageBand". I would appreciate knowing your rationale. Is this not in violation of the style and how-to policy "Cite your sources"?

You can communicate with me on my talk page.

Since this incident, I have actually ceased to conform to the APA style specified in the "Cite your sources" policy, because I felt it would be pointless to do so if my work would only be undone.

Vespristiano 18:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)


David, what you reverted on grounds of "self-promotion" was only good information. Please see the iridology talk page for details. We must not hunt POVs and delete them. We must only mark them as such and explain them seriously. NPOV is a measure of central tendency in a wide field where all POVs are spread eagle. NPOV editing is not some innate or recessive trait of some uebermenschen - only a mean of all POVs expressed as such and especially freely. Your insistance in automatic reverting did not help you see that for two months the page was frozen on the good version. You reverted to the wrong one. Here we go again ! - irismeister 22:53, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

I would have more faith in your good intentions if they didn't involve posting your own name or your own website as an authority on the validity of iridology. - David Gerard 21:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


I like the way you put it better. NPOV too many times means "withholding information", especially on wikipedia. The way it was originally put was not to my taste... calling it an "analysis of randi's challenge" or whatnot is not accurate.

I think the wiki politics are getting to me. Wikipedia has become much of a soapbox for the "crazies" (Irismeister, MNH, Reddi, Grizzly) and nobody wants to do anything about them.

Make their heads explode? It's more difficult with Irismeister in that he appears to be here to use Wikipedia as advertising for his commercial interests, he's just doing it more subtly than your typical spammer. Pointing out what he's here for may be to the point. - David Gerard 21:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I used to really like wikipedia, but the more I hang around here the more painfully obvious the place is riddled with favoritism, POV wars, with nobody to put their foot down and say what is commonly accepted and what isn't.

Scientific_skepticism is in a horrible state. Reddi continues to revert to his personal "soapbox" version, and under the rules he's perfectly allowed to do it because, sadly, nobody cares.

Could you possibly weigh in on the matter? Any unbiased person can see what garbage he posts... - Lord Kenneth 21:07, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Could do at some stage ;-) - David Gerard 21:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for your participation on scientific_skepticism. If you check the quickpolls you'll find that people are angry at me and think I've been silly, even though I'm blatantly in the right! They even suggest banning me from that page!

Wikipedia is sickening. It's a prime example of a democracy that doesn't work: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. - Lord Kenneth 02:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


As if I'd do a thing like trolling. ;) Nope. I really did mean expediate. As in to hasten. But now I've checked, it seems expedite means the same thing. It's not a word I'd ever use but now I know what it means, I'll leave it in, but the original version wasn't a typo. Angela. 21:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I was joking :-) I thought it was an error, though. First I've heard of "expediate" ... - David Gerard 22:23, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we need an Australian and British English differences page as well as the American and British English differences one. :) Angela. 13:49, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Republics of USSR[edit]

The full names of the republics are very long, and there always are two of them for each republic (except Russia), so I thought it would be better to put them in a separate section to keep the head of the article small and clear. — Monedula 22:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. I was following the example of most other articles where the local name is listed - it's almost universally in the intro paragraph, right after the name in English. This includes articles on Russian-language subjects. Even if it makes the intro a bit long, I think it doesn't detract from the readability in these cases. And having the local names as a separate section struck me as far too clunky to keep - David Gerard 22:23, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again[edit]

I have to thank you again for taking the time to try to fix scientific_skepticism (although it's now locked). I don't really understand why you take the time, though. You tell the truth on homeopathy, people whine. You tell the truth on skepticism, people whine. I can't see how you can think it's worthwhile to work only to get slapped down by the wikipedia system.

You're one of the few good editors, I think. You try to deal with someone violating good faith by reverting their POV submissions and then you get insulted for being "biased". If you don't know, I recently had a quickpoll on ME for scientific_skepticism.

Please, find another website than wikipedia... wikipedia does not appreciate proper editing. - Lord Kenneth 02:10, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just don't let the dribbling feckwits get you down. And take recovery time. I'm about to go on holiday for three weeks, which should be sufficient recovery time ;-) - David Gerard 13:42, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


Vogel is in arbitration. If you have any comments go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel AndyL 05:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


File:Respiration thumb.gif

<a reff="">




Who do I this?

Those are great! I'll put them in the article, er, soonish, if you don't ... - David Gerard 22:36, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

X band dispute page[edit]

I moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment 'cuz nobody was voting. Mackerm 05:50, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason for the arguing on the VfD page is that I didn't state my case very well at the top. I'm going to rewrite the top part and edit out most of the comments. (I'll leave the votes.) And then I'll leave it at VfD for the required week. Good luck! Mackerm 04:00, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest not deleting the discussion - deleting people's discussion is the sort of thing that can be taken wrongly by many - David Gerard 06:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the copyedits to the draft article. I dashed it off in a pique of self-rightousness, but somehow managed to keep it neutral. Alcarillo 14:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Very good, and certainly better than the original ;-) - David Gerard 15:13, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

List of Pantheists[edit]

I noticed your edit for List of Pantheists, I think that is a good improvement I suggest you explain why on the talk page to make it clear to certain individuals who need to have their hand held. GrazingshipIV 22:26, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

We've been round this one lots of times, particularly regarding Paul Vogel's edits on Carl Sagan and Cosmotheism. - David Gerard 15:29, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Meeting Jimbo[edit]

Hi David. Seeing you're London-based, are you interested in coming along to the meeting with Jimbo on the 5th June? Info here. - MykReeve 20:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! - David Gerard 20:40, May 16, 2004 (UTC)


Excellent work on AdTI! (from one 'pedian first, groklaw (reader) second) // OlofE 22:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

What amazes me is when these sort of things come up and there isn't an article already ... I suppose someone has to start one. - David Gerard 23:48, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Re John Cale Discography[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the John Cale discography. I have checked it against All Music Guides [1] briefly and it looks OK. I had a Google news alert from Aversion saying that Hobosapiens was to be released later in 2004 on an independent label and started to edit the discography on that basis. However a check of the All Music Guide showed that the discography was correct and I listed it as a minor edit leaving it as unchanged. My edit summary comments were intended to leave the impression that it was a minor edit and that no changes had been made - it obviously failed to give such an impression. I apologise unreservedly if I caused any offence.



Emphasis in original?[edit]

In U.S.-led_occupation_of_Iraq in the Bush quote, I italicized the words "full sovereignty" to call attention to them. Since the news article from which I was quoting did not have those words italicized or in boldface, I put [emphasis supplied] to show that it was I, not Bush who was calling attention to the phrase. You changed this to [emphasis in original]. Does this mean that you have a source for the quotation in which those words are emphasized? If not, then why did you make the change?. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what your phrase meant! Best leave it with no emphasis, I suggest - David Gerard 23:40, May 27, 2004 (UTC)


I have exactly same things to say. You seem to mix up FSF, GNU and Richard Stallman. Stallman is not FSF. Please understand that. And just because the majority calls the system "Linux" doesn't mean the system as a whole is "Linux". It's just the way some people call it, and some other people call it GNU/Linux. In the strict sense "Linux" is the kernel, and you are spreading false information through the Linux page and paint Stallman is bad picture through GNU/Linux. If you don't know what you are talking, leave it to others who know what they are talking. -regards Gnu

I basically agree. It's still POV and advocacy even if I agree. Note it says Richard Stallman and the FSF, by the way. - David Gerard 09:51, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but calling it "linux" is also "POV". We need to have a balanced view in there and present both the views.
That's why there's a section which leads to a lengthy sub-article.
Roping in Stallman's views, kind of, says that only Stallman wants to have it that way. That's clearly not the case.
Richard Stallman is a primary advocate of the position and is well known as one.
Most people who call it "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" do so because of ignorance, and this page is supposed to educate them, IMHO. --Gnu 10:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Nope, It's supposed to be descriptive (NPOV), not didactic (POV). It's not a lecture.
Of course, yes. But, unfortunately, calling it Linux *is* also POV. Otherwise GNU/Linux page shouldn't have specifically pointed to the naming controversy. It should have been a page in itself!
There's a knotty history of pages being redirected, etc. I think (going by the talk) the current situation is because "Linux" is far and away the most common name, and after everyone wanted every possible controversy about Linux mentioned with all options in the first paragraph, they were (sensibly) cleared away to form a readable article in clear English for someone who knows nothing about this "Linux" they've heard so much about. Both names are mentioned in the intro, representing the other POV - David Gerard 13:37, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
As I said, I strongly urge you to read the past discussion in Talk:Linux and Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy - these have been gone over at length. You (and I) may think it's incorrect to call the OS "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux", but that's conventional usage; pretending it isn't would not be appropriate - David Gerard 10:59, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I am reading it. Thanks.

consider this the equivalent of a lend-lease act[edit]

Lend-lease, like when we "loaned" you some destroyers. Although you seem to be holding your own on the alt med page with vigor and resilience, I feel like I ought to help support a sentence being currently disputed:

It may also be described as "diagnosis, treatment, or therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat illness" — although practitioners are frequently so licensed.

I offer you a fuller explication of the point to use as you see fit:

Much of alternative medicine might accurately be described as medicine practiced by persons not licensed to practice medicine. Most states and legal jurisdictions provide licensure of those legally permitted to practice medicine, usually defined as the diagnosis and treatment of disease, usually by prescribing drugs or performing surgery. The laws were originally enacted to prevent inadequately trained practitioners or those using theories and ideas considered of no value from holding themselves out as physicians. In the US, before licensure laws, homeopaths, naturopaths, and many other practitioners of what would now be considered "alternative medicine" held themselves out to the public as physicians. To some extent this legal distinction still provides a valid perspective on the whole field, at least partly explaining a number of phenomena. Here are two examples of phenomena that arise at least in part from the licensing laws or their history:

1. If you look at the websites, books, advertising literature, and products sold by many if not most alt med practitioners, you will find notices to the effect that their device, advice, product, or treatment “is not intended for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.” Much chiropractic literature for much of the last few decades explicitly claimed to be treating subluxations, not disease, to avoid being prosecuted for “practicing medicine without a license.” It simply illustrates my point that the disavowal is usually is contradicted by the explicit or implicit claims made by the same practitioner or product.

2. The same phenomena perhaps tainted some treatment methods for real physicians: “if someone else could do it without a license, it can’t be worth as much to the patient as something only I can do.” This is obviously an exaggeration, but I suspect had and has some validity as an explanation for some of the resistance to the less outre’ alt med ideas. In other words, I was trying to make the point that much of what defines and characterizes alt med and especially the hostility between the alt med practitioners and real physicians arises from these social and legal constraints. I think it is a fairly important aspect of the whole topic.

3. A related point, which we didn’t even get to, and will really give MNH apoplexy, is the definition of “natural.” If you watch the alt med claims and advertising you slowly realize that the only thing that all the treatments described as “natural” have in common is that they can be administered, sold, or advocated without a license to practice medicine. There is no other sense of the word as broadly applicable to all the bizarre, loony, artificial, and often synthetic or factory-made alt med products and practices that are claimed to be “natural.”

When MNH first denied the original sentence, which is fairly objectively supportable, I thought he was doing so on the basis that “medicine” shouldn’t be defined as narrowly as the licensure laws do. However, he quickly demonstrated that his opposition was far less intelligible, defensible, or discussable. I don’t know if heidimo understands that this was the original point of the sentence, or would concede it if she did. I suspect she might, unless she is simply too invested in opposing it. I have to agree with her that when MNH appended “although practitioners are frequently so licensed” it rendered the sentence confused if not nonsensical without further clarification. Does the clause refer to licensed physicians prescribing alt med treatments or does it claim that a naturopath or massage or chiropractic license is the same as a license to practice medicine, or did he mean something I can’t even guess?

You may repaint this with HMS and sail it as you wish, and perhaps even remove it from this harbor, as I wish to remain a noncombatant if not neutral in sympathy. - User:

I've posted it to Talk:Alternative medicine unedited. It should provoke much thought and discussion, I'm sure - David Gerard 11:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MNH Arbitration[edit]

Thank you for letting me know. I'll sit on the sidelines for the moment; I have confidence in the arbitration committee's ability to reach the right conclusions on the basis of the evidence. -- ALargeElk | Talk 11:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dito. I don't think the case you have made can really be added toGeni 12:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's been accepted[edit]

The AC have accepted the MNH case. The evidence needs to be added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health/Evidence theresa knott 10:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Don't forget to put your stuff from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Original_response_to_MNH_2 onto the evidence page - ie the proof that you offered mediation and that MNH denied that you did. Sorry if you have and I've just overlooked it. --bodnotbod 14:45, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object[edit]

I've gotten a complaint asking if I'm going to fix the misdirected page links. Given that I only moved the page because you and Avsa couldn't, I'm passing this task on to you. -- Cyrius| 02:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll go through and fix redirections etc - David Gerard 10:51, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

News Sources on Current Events[edit]

David, events occur. We can agree on this, I am sure. These events are reported by various news agencies in various ways. We can agree on this, I am sure. Given the disparity in reporting "styles", I doubt that anyone approves of all news sources. That's fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions (a basis of democracy?). We are not entitled to deny others their opinions (even more central to democracy). Should you wish to add news sources...that's great. Let's not deny an event based upon not liking the news agency. "Dont shoot the messenger." ... AnonIP

INN's not a news agency, though - it's a Slashdot-like blog that mostly reports news from other places, filtered for partisan interests. Which is fine - I'm not against it existing as a partisan news source, but I wouldn't link it as a news agency any more than I'd link Groklaw as a news agency.
If something of international interest like this is actual news, it would almost certainly be covered by one of the general news feeds - David Gerard 10:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Medicine detachment assertion[edit]

What is the evidence that supports the assertions on the development of detachment that was mentioned in the criticism section? See talk for discussion. Kd4ttc 01:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the criticism is justified. That it is a common criticism, however, needs to be mentioned - David Gerard 07:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

UK/NL turnouts[edit]

Er... yeah. Well spotted. I saw those figures in one of the papers last night (Scotsman? Grauniad?) and I was clearly so flabbergasted that I didn't stop to think critically. (Can't find the article in q. now -- either they rectified or I hallucinated the whole thing. Wouldn't be the first time.) Cheers, Hajor 15:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Have you read the discussion archives? All of them? I'm not endorsing the content of the article and I didn't write it, but spamming and re-spamming the same page is not the way to NPOV a text. It is up to RK to reinsert specific facts that were taken out, not to reinsert the whole damn thing and make us pick out the stuff he repeated (which is quite a bit). He has also yet to respond to Roadrunner's explanations for removing some of the content. I would like to also see the the article made NPOV, but this is the wrong way to do it. --Jiang 23:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go through and try to approach this more methodically tomorrow, time allowing - David Gerard 23:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

But you removed an image from Katalyst for no reason. The page was wrongly put on vfd, but you removed the image before the votes had even been finished.

No I didn't, I unlinked it because it was grossly unencyclopedic. I did list it on Images for Deletion, though, as it deserves - David Gerard 13:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Congratulations! After getting (what may be a record) 39 votes of support on RfA, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 02:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well done! 39 yes votes! yeah! Try out you new powers (ha - you don't have any real power as such) slowly at first. Be especially careful with deleting images - since they can't be undeleted.theresa knott 08:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I found quite a few would-be articles that were simply non-existent while looking for things to add :) I'll probably have a look at cleaning up/writing a few at some point, though I'm no expert on the subject. (At least it's a break from other obsessions...) Lady Lysine Ikinsile 22:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Punk band subcategories[edit]

User:The Undertones, who added all of those categories, is hard banned User:Michael, all of whose additions are to be reveted on sight. See Michael's User page for that. If YOU want to re-add the material in YOUR name, then please do so, but Michael has been banned because he repeatedly adds false information and none of us his additions can be trusted. (as well as the repeated vandalism he does). RickK 21:26, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Might well do - David Gerard 22:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I really don’t see how the status of the user Irismeister has anything to do with the Tesla article.--GeneralPatton 18:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

His rambling in the talk page. I shall strike my comment - David Gerard 22:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you are still following the anti-Semitism article[edit]

If you are still following the anti-Semitism article, check out the recent edit-war. Simonides' shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.

Tube Map[edit]

David, you changed the text on Tube map with the comment that "not 'frequently' - it's universal" rather than the edit I made that it is "frequently". I really can't agree with you (but haven't reverted it yet, but will if you don't) as, by definition, it isn't "universal" - just look at the map itself (no label of 'tube' anywhere) and 'universal' means no alternative used elsewhere, absolute which the name 'tube' clearly is not. 'Tube' may be very common, but it is not absolute. --VampWillow 13:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When people talk about 'the tube', how often do they implicitly exclude the subsurface lines? Pretty much never. Does only cover the deep tunnels? Of course not. There's a case to be made that "tube" only means the deep lines, but IMHO it's not a common enough POV to rate a mention in the intro, if it even rates one in the article as a whole - David Gerard 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In an Anglo-centric (or more accurately London-centric) view I'd agree with you, but if I look at leaflets for tourists and many sites on a world-wide basis they will as frequently use 'underground' not 'tube' (Aside: London Underground Limited not London Tube Limited!) which is why I left the 'frequently' in there. It is not universal. --VampWillow 15:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, London Underground Limited is an abbreviation of the company's original full title, which was The London Underground Electric Railway Company Limited. The term Tube had not yet at that time come into general useage. Arkady Rose 21:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha - I thought you meant the application of the term "tube" (all vs. deep level only), rather than what the network is called (underground vs tube). In that case I maintain the text was unclear, because I took it to mean the first, not the second - David Gerard 15:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about we go with but the name is usually applied to the whole system. (or maybe but the name is applied by Londoners to the whole system.). ? --VampWillow 16:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Response on Talk:Tube map, where we should be discussing this - David Gerard 16:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Are you and Darrien have a multi-article rampage war? You might want to get out before people take notice. The one who continues will be more at fault. - Tεxτurε 15:50, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm stopping at 3 reverts. I couldn't put the point any more clearly than "I understand and agree with removing gratuitous Linuxisms, but when it's the actual targeted platform, cleansing all mention is just POV-pushing anti-advocacy." - David Gerard 15:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you on that point. Glad to see it isn't going to grow, though. - Tεxτurε 15:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm attempting a compromise. Please have a look and tell me what you think. -- Grunt (talk) 15:56, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I've changed a couple. That software whose only supported target platform is specifically Linux can be cajoled into running elsewhere is a nice bonus, but Linux compat is "caveat emptor" - mentioning it for each instance is as nonsensical as adding "but also runs under CrossOver Office on Linux" to every bit of Windows software that happens to be true for. - David Gerard 18:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FAC standards[edit]

I'm glad you approve! There's a big difference between a good article and a brilliant one, and we should guard against forgetting it. Soon we will have extra metadata about articles for distinguishing the good from the works-in-progress. That will help recognize good articles before they reach the heights of brilliance. +sj+ 13:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Supply side economics[edit]

I've asked for mediation, this is the culmination of a long edit war, and there have already been unsuccessful attempts at discussion, a user poll and edits on other pages. It's time for other eyeballs to sort this one out. Thanks. Stirling Newberry 16:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


How long do you give it before we get an edit war about the inclusion of certain articles in the category you just made?  ;) Morwen - Talk 15:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm more worried about Category:Goth myself… Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:07, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the creation of four categories. All are potentially controversial edit-wise. However, none have so far suffered such controversy ... - David Gerard 19:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removal of replies[edit]

I assume from your removal of my reply that you did not want me to reply on your talk page. Not having anywhere else to reply to your comment, I put it here. No harm was intended, and I will not write on your talk page again. Might I suggest that if you do not want replies you mention that when writing to other people's talk pages? Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 00:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your request for others to investigate the user who has posted above: I don't know that I have more expertise here than you do, but I'll offer my observations. The history indicates some interest in the article Internet troll, which should not be surprising from any user with this kind of name, regardless of who the user may be. Otherwise, except for activity on certain policy pages related to banning, the set of articles contributed to does not have that much in common with JRR Trollkien, but this user still has a relatively short contribution history.
The account is contemporary with JRR Trollkien and would likely know of him even if they were different people. This could be enough to explain how he found and adopted the Legion of Trolls text - this action reflects a certain philosophy toward Wikipedia, but isn't conclusive proof that he and JRR Trollkien are the same person, though it's circumstantially suggestive. (I might mention that a link to this same text was added to User:Plato/red faction by an IP address generally believed to be User:Lir, and it's pretty well accepted that those two are different people than the 24/142/EoT/JRR group. Like the internet troll article, this text attracts a certain type of person, of which there is definitely more than one.) Anyway, it's on his userpage, and I don't care much what people put on their own userpages, even if it's written by banned users.
What I'm left to conclude is that there isn't strong proof of identity yet, but there's also not much to disprove it. The viewpoints, interests, writing style, etc. of this user aren't inconsistent with your theory, and there is of course the similarity in usernames. I also observe that this user has a tactic, similar to JRR Trollkien, of mixing in a lot of trivial edits (e.g., adding stub messages), perhaps to make it harder to locate edits that might be problematic.
I will try to remain watchful on this case. If there are new developments, like reinsertion of text written by a banned user into actual articles, please let me know. --Michael Snow 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Accidental_blocks myself. "Don't do that then." - David Gerard 22:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Laika, FAC[edit]

Added a reply to your objections. I hope it is satisfactory. If all else fails, it would not hurt to remove the stamp picture but I think the article would be less complete without it. Zerbey 21:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We shall see what we can find. Phillip Clark must have gotten those pics from somewhere ... - David Gerard 22:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Ashley Mote - this is interesting... Secretlondon 15:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it just. Can't think of a way to mention it that wouldn't be journalism - David Gerard 16:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll baiting[edit]

Hi there - I don't feel that your reversions on Internet Troll set a very good example. The user that you reverted has made comments on the talk page about why they did this, the edits seem reasonable, and you reverted it without comment. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not pick fights. Can you please explain? Thanks, Mark Richards 21:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hello there, I see that you made a lot of the original changes to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I've gone in there and changed some things around, thought I would just let you know, I think it accords a little better with Kuhn's book at this point, but that's just one guy's opinion, I'd love for you to take a look at it (and also because I am always in need of a good copy-editor). I should probably also note that I'm a historian, so I read the book a little differently than a philosopher does, I'd imagine (I think Kuhn would imagine that too). Thanks! --Fastfission 02:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must admit I haven't actually read SSR - if you have, that'll be 100% better than my input ;-) I'll look - David Gerard 12:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the revert. Hyacinth 19:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) I'm trying not to channel RickK. Really. (Hi Rick ;-) - David Gerard 21:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well A. Shetsen 22:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? You tool! ANYTHING you can't answer becomes "Vandalism"! People like you are the reason why this world is so fucked up and corrupt! PEOPLE...DO NOT TOLERATE HYACINTH'S CENSORSHIP!

Thanks for your support[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Laika (again)[edit]

Would you mind changing your object to a Support since the image issue has been resolved? That will leave me with just one objection (which should also be solved). Thanks once again for your help. Zerbey 19:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done - David Gerard 23:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)[edit]

(William M. Connolley 22:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Thanks for the banning of I don't know if you did it because you saw my request or whatever, but thanks anyway.

Specific objection to BNP article[edit]

Hi David,

I've added some objections to the BNP piece as requested, see Talk:British National Party.

-- Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinion requested[edit]

What do you think to the edits on Leicester South by-election, 2004 and UK local elections, 2004, which have removed all commentary about the events, apparently upon grounds of 'NPOV'? Morwen - Talk 13:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I reverted both to the previous version. Neither contained editorialisation. At worst, references to e.g. press commentary might be demanded - David Gerard 13:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be a new user who has greatly misunderstood the purpose of NPOV. I would suggest checking their other edits and making gentle suggestions and gentler reverts as appropriate - David Gerard 13:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Out of my curiosity, according to your block summary of Largoslargo, is this User:Rienzo? Not that I offend anyone. Marcus2 21:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I strongly suspected it. Also, it strongly resembles a single-use sock puppet account. Rienzo has since said he will be more polite on Wikipedia and work better with others, which is the real goal. And the block is up now. Blocks are basically a bad thing; the aim of a block is meant to be against behaviour, not a person, so if the behaviour will be moderated that's good :-) - David Gerard 19:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your reverts of Mr.[edit]

Seeing you undo some of my contributions, I'll be cautious about contributing time to wikipedia again. I don't want to give you much more of my time by debating each clarification I made. I can see a hint of reason behind some of your reverts, like removing my link to "proprietary software" from the "Microsoft Windows" page, although even there I think it would have been better if you moved that link to a more appropriate section (such as a "See Also" section). (Moving it tells people to work together, undoing it tells people to go away). As I said in my Edit summary, Microsoft Windows is the classic proprietary software package, not mentioning "proprietary software" on that page is unusual.

I doubt my wasted time can be unwasted, but I hope you'll consider not doing the same to others. Here are some particular reverts which I think were clearly innappropriate:

  • On "Linux": I said that many GNU project volunteers and free software supporters, advocate the name "GNU/Linux". You reverted this to "the Free Software Foundation", which is flat out wrong. I'm a GNU volunteer and a free software supporter, and I know 100s of others, and we're not part of FSF. (FSF is only 14 people right now)
  • On "Linux": In a sentence about the aspects of a GNU/Linux install that are easier than Windows, I added "and no "product registration" is required." You removed this and I can see no reason. The process, which MS call "product activation" is quite time consuming because of it's interactive needs, and if an internet connection isn't available, long phonecalls to an automated telephone system are required. And if there's an MS problem, you're left dangling.
  • On "Windows XP": I put a link to "proprietary software" in the "See Also" section at the end of the page. You removed it and I can see no reason.


Please see Talk:penguin for category comment. jimfbleak 16:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Silverchair etc. category changes[edit]

Hi David, your changes of the categories relating to Silverchair members, Paul Mac, etc. has resulted in (for example) Frogstomp becoming a member of Category:Australian musicians (Frogstomp -> Category:Silverchair albums -> Category:Silverchair -> Category:Australian musicians). I'll revert it back - I was just letting you know my reasoning. -- Chuq 23:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Licence is a noun. License is a verb. Please remember this when reverting other people's changes. —Wereon 18:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Register is UK-based - David Gerard 18:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The synthetic dream foundation[edit]

An anon has been adding links to this article to others (e.g. Darkwave). They don't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as Xymox and The Cruxshadows, but I'm not sure enough to revert it. Thoughts? Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 19:01, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

It's hard to tell with the autohagiographic style favoured by band vanity pages, isn't it ... I've heard of them, though I couldn't tell you what they're like. I'd take out the vanity mentions elsewhere and de-hagiographise this page - David Gerard 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grace Kelly[edit]

Yes, it's correct, I have promised to be more polite, but can you tell me the reason for you labelling Grace Kelly a gay icon? Why is it important for you to make her a gay icon, when there is NO proof of her being one? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be NPOV? Why do you revert arbitrarily? Rienzo 23:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PaX FA Discussion[edit]

I've added some things to the WP:FAC discussion about PaX, and to PaX itself. Take another look, and tell me what I'm missing.

All I really did was add diagrams and moved the "Why PaX is significant" section to the top.

--Bluefox Phoenix Lucid 00:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine WikiProject[edit]

Hi David. I've begun to make some changes to the Alternative Medicine Wikiproject and its subpages. As you've been involved with this issue before, you may want to have a look at the Project and at its talk page. Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

Thanks for fixing my dup on NZ passport fraud. I can't believe I forgot to look to see if the story was already posted.--gadfium 22:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection request[edit]

Hi David - it looks like there is no dispute that User:The Trolls of Navarone should be unprotected and reverted - could you go ahead and do that? Heph archived the discussion on his talk page and does not seem to have provided any justification, Thanks, Mark Richards 14:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ohhh, okay. JUST YOU KIDS BEHAVE! grumble, mutter. If it starts again I will put this on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever! - David Gerard 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's lame, but my problem is that Heph has declared he has no interest in discussing this, simply that his opinion must stand. There is no community support for aritrary user page blanking, in fact, Heph is a frequent victim of this by vandals, something we all deplore. How would you suggest moving forward? Thank you. Mark Richards 15:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that anyone who gives a hoot about preserving or blanking the talk page of the sockpuppet of a hard-banned user should spend more time writing articles or something ... I deal with it by thinking about almost anything else. I have restored the "lame edit war" warning ;-) - David Gerard 15:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Why do you insist on putting the German WWII name in the header of the article? The city was named this way for 5 years only. Do you also plan to add other German names in articles about other cities renamed during the war? And how about cities conquered by Germany earlier (Franco-Prussian War, WWI...)? How about Bruges and other Western-European cities? Halibutt 14:42, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Any chance I will get an answer from you? Halibutt 18:31, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Who renamed it doesn't matter - it was a name of the city. The current version with a note at the end of the intro is okay - David Gerard 00:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lame edit war[edit]

I was wondering if you could fix the link on User:The Trolls of Navarone to point to the user talk page rather than to the article talk space? Thanks. - Hephaestos|§ 15:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh! Thought you'd re-protected it. Thanks! - Hephaestos|§ 15:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's why it says "unprotected." Just please preserve the notice ;-) - David Gerard 15:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Editing Ed[edit]

Just a note to say thanks for keeping an eye on the work I'm doing to the Ed Wood, Jr. page. While I'm pretty happy with the content so far, my spelling and format can sometimes be pretty crappy. Cheers, ears!

You are incompetent[edit]

David, you have already clearly demonstrated that you are an incompetent admin and basically a useless waste of airspace with some sort of virtual badge. I want you to stay out of stuff for which you clearly lack competence to make judgement calls. I thought I had instructed you on this once before? --K1 12:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cheers, mate! I couldn't agree more! Rienzo 13:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(The above being in reference to this and this. Soon after, someone else blocked the above user for personal attacks. Welcome to Wikipedia, here's your accordion - David Gerard 12:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC))

protection request[edit]

Please have a look at Religious minorities in Iran K1 has come back and has immediately restarted his revert wars and being generally abusive. If you can please protect this page at whatever stage acceptable in order to stop this and force some debate. I do think there is room for agreement if agreement was sought, but unfortunately this does not happen at the moment. Refdoc 20:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone else protected it. I did block him again for personal attacks; he can't say he hasn't been warned by lots of people. As Wikipedia:No personal attacks points out, "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." - David Gerard 00:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is there any way of getting rid of the edit summaries ? The abusive ones , I mean ? Refdoc 00:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that I know of. That's why they're particularly ill-regarded - David Gerard 07:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Thanks. Hyacinth 05:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Linux page[edit]

I noticed you reverted my edit to Linux. Did I violate a policy or something in the style guide? I'd like to not do it again, if so. Thanks. --David Merrill 17:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oops, must write proper reasons rather than just hitting 'rollback' ... not style guide, it just struck me as redundant - Linux was first written specifically for the 386, many other architectures coming later; the rest of x86 needn't be mentioned and unnecessarily complicates the paragraph. That's IMO of course. - David Gerard 20:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isle of Sheppey[edit]

Hello, can you please clarify why a site which states "Some aspects of this site may offend the weak minded, especially the weak minded amongst the Sheppey natives, which is just about all of them. If you are squeamish or easily upset then we suggest you choose not to enter this site. You should probably go fuck yourself instead." is useful info on the island? Anárion 12:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:Isle of Sheppey - David Gerard 13:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


(Also posted to the TextPad talk page)

Two days ago you reverted four edits I made to the Emacs, XEmacs, vim and TextPad pages (all in the editors category). Your explanation was that I was "spamming". You then proceeded to ban my IP for two days.

What I posted was a link to a page on my website where I have a listing of most known code editors for Windows of all types. Open source, commercial, shareware, etc. I only edited the "Related links" section; except in the case of this TextPad article, which I actually filled out with (what I think) was relevant information and removed the stub notice. What exactly about that edit offended you again?

Now, "spamming" entails some sort of gain. I'd like you to explain just what exactly I'm gaining by posting that link. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the ads or pop-ups on my web site. Maybe you found some sort of advertising for an editor product there?

Did you even bother to visit the link? Do you know what it contains? I posted it because I think it is a useful resource for Windows developers. You do realize that developers read these pages? Could it be that a listing of almost 400 code editing-related tools might be on topic for these editor articles? Or are you offended by the fact that most of them are intended for Windows developers? Or maybe you're just uncomfortable because of my relationship with Microsoft?

Given that you've essentially abused your all-mighty "editor powers" I'd like you to explain your rationale for removing my edits (and banning me) or stop trying to play god.

You put a lot of links to your personal site on lots of barely-relevant articles, and you don't think this is spamming? - David Gerard 22:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[rest moved to Talk:TextPad]

No Nazi names, please[edit]

Please stop pushing the [[Nazi] names of the Polish cities into the English language articles. Poland was occupied by Germany, and 20% of the Poles lost their lives, just because they didn't want to be Germans and to use the German city names. The Nazi names are very offensive, similar to panting Nazi swastika on Jewish graves. I hope you will understand this. Thank you. PolishPoliticians 23:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The names that were used in English must be noted. Your equation of "German" with "Nazi" seems fundamentally racist and not to be taken seriously. Note also I hope you will stop referring to others as Nazis in talk pages or especially edit summaries, as per the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy - David Gerard 23:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Journalist query[edit]

Can you please e-mail me at jason AT I am a journalist and want to ask you a question about one of your Wikipedia articles.

Hi, my e-mail account isn't working, can I trouble you to contact me again, but at jasonwalsh AT Sorry about this, J...

Emailed :-)

M'era Luna spammer[edit]

gung-ho - NOBODY expects the Australian Inquisition!

" Category:Goth festivals (List of links) < Category:Goth festivals

No pages link to here. "

Thank you David! Well done!

Don't you think that you are missing the purpose of the wiki project? 13:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Its purpose was to spam the M'era Luna Festival, then? The category is a subcategory of category:goth, where it belongs; M'era Luna, article-worthy though it may be, isn't otherwise a sensible see-also on every other goth festival article nor various other goth-related articles - David Gerard 14:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dead End Thinking

Dear God,

one very important purpose is to have links to related subjects. When I read an article about Romanesque architecture than I want links to a list of examples of buildings or other styles etc. I don't want to have a dead-end street (so please don't think about touching the romanesque site). Or do you mean I should erase all links to your sweetheart The Cathedral and the Bazaar because for me it is very unimportant and it is only advertisement for the book? Or I am not allowed to erase the links because you are god and you love the book? By the way: there is a life outside of wikipedia. You can’t image it, but there are people living without any computer. They meet friends and going on festivals. I invite you to see the sun, make friends in the real world and to come to the M'era Luna Festival. Cheers! your mother 16:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard blocked my IP because of the discussion above (spamming and threats of vandalism in retaliation)

Quote: Your user name or IP address has been blocked by David Gerard. The reason given is this: M\'era Luna spammer again, threatening vandalism - triple block

Dear David. I haven't spammed in the meanwhile anything. That was a discussion! A discussion on your talk site with YOU! You lied in your reason. This is a personal attack.

Explain me where was the current vandalism!

Explain me where I spammed again!

Or did you block me because you don't respect other opinions? see: Censorship

The task of a good administrator is not only to make hundreds of changes a day. He should also have the ability to discuss with normal users. Apparently you don't have this ability.

I am expecting an answer and no new IP-block from you. 20:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I note you've carefully reworded the above since this edit. You're just spamming for the festival. Spamming gets you blocked, and threats of vandalism in retaliation get you blocked. This is standard policy.
If you really think links to the M'era Luna article from everywhere are encyclopaedic, you should wait for someone else to put them in. See Wikipedia:Auto-biography. If they're encyclopaedic, someone else will put them in; if no-one else puts them in, they're almost certainly not in fact encyclopaedic - David Gerard 20:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spamming in an discussion? That's absurd!!! That was ironic! If you know what irony is! If not see here: irony Don't forget to read carefully the censorship article! That's very much too easy!

By the way: I was not rewording anything. I changed misspelled words, because I am from Germany and my English is not so good.

You assume I care. Stop spamming M'era Luna links. - David Gerard 22:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I won't "spam" anymore m'era luna links (or anything else). I assure that to you.
But it's also not the finest way to change the discussion and MY WORDS.
You changed the headline to a smaller size and added "spamming and threats of vandalism in retaliation". Also you change the hole topic to your lie "spammer"
([ See this version).
Wants there someone changes the information to be in a better light? Is this a special wikipedia administrator rule or the David Gerard god mode?
Congratulations to your Pyrrhic victory! You are my hero!
I won't bother you again. Cheers from New York -- 04:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a cult?[edit]

Hello David, do you think that Wikipedia should be on the list of purported cults? Please read this article Wikipedia:controversial issues. Thanks in advance Andries 14:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, simply because that's original research. Furthermore, an attempt at reductio ad absurdum is not a serious attribution of something as a cult. Third-party attributions only, with solid references, I would suggest - David Gerard 16:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Featured Articles[edit]

Hi. I don't think Category:Wikipedia Featured Articles should be going on article pages. It should be on the talk page for the same reason template:featured is only allowed on the talk page. Also, if you need to add a category, why not just add it to template:featured rather than each article? Angela. 19:45, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Raul has just pointed me to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates so ignore what I said. I didn't realise it had been discussed already as I was looking at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles not FAC. Angela. 20:21, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Need help with Jazz[edit]

Greetings. I noticed your "featured article" thingie on Jazz, so I thought I'd contact you. Don't know if you've noticed, but I've rewritten/added to/edit it extensively -- and I think some folks' noses may be out of joint about it. (I didn't like the perspective of the piece, frankly; and I thought some important stuff was missing -- and still is. IMO, it seemed awfully sparse to be a featured article.) Anyway, I've asked repeatedly for help with the links I've added, but without any response. (I'm crunching a deadline, and haven't got the time -- or the patience, frankly to read the manual -- and am hopeful that you will take a look.) The links work if accessed in the editing mode, but not from the article itself. I think they're important, so I would appreciate any help you can offer. I also did my last edits rather quickly, so would appreciate a second eye. Gotta get back to work. Thanks for whatever you can do. Peace. deeceevoice 04:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

move Wodonga, Australia to Wodonga (needs delete of redirect)[edit]

hi david, as a sysop, i wonder if you could delete the redirect that currently exists at Wodonga and move Wodonga, Australia to Wodonga, to preserve the history. i think it's safe not disambiguate this city, because there is only one wodonga in pretty much the whole world, and it makes sense to not disambiguate unless necessary. in any case, if there is any disambiguation at all, it should be Wodonga, Victoria (see talk:list of Sydney suburbs#naming conventions for more on this). if you could also do the deletion of the Newtown, New South Wales redirect so i can move Newtown, Australia to Newtown, New South Wales, that would also be great. thanks clarkk 07:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to Wodonga, Victoria (it seems the more canonical name, even if other Wodongas are unlikely) and fixed the redirects - David Gerard 16:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And the same for Newtown - David Gerard 21:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trolls in music[edit]

I (of course) disagree with the removal of the paragraph "Trolls in music" in Troll. Please see my short comment in Talk:Troll. Regards, Ukuk 16:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was longer than the actual troll metal article! - David Gerard 16:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ow... right, I wasn't aware of that, sorry (: Ukuk 06:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why italics should be used in Eastern Orthodoxy as now written[edit]

I think you made a mistake. When one writes about a word of phrase rather than using the word or phrase to write about what it refers to, one should italicize it. Thus:

A dog is an animal that barks.

(Not italicized, since one is writing about dogs, and not about the word dog.)

Dog refers to either of two things: an animal that barks, or a kind of robot invented in AD 2024.

(Italicized, since one is writing about the word rather than about the animal.)

When refers to is used, then one is writing about the word, not about the thing! Michael Hardy 17:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would actually disagree with that ... the MoS disagrees too, but I wrote the bit it disagrees with ;-) (though a while ago) In conventional Wikipedia usage, as far as I can tell article names are only italicised when it's always written in italics - David Gerard 21:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is the relevant part of the style manual

Italicize words when they are being referenced in a sentence, rather than used normally. Similarly for letters.
    • The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
      • The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
    • The letter E is the most common letter in English.

So if the article begins with

Eastern Orthodoxy comprises the religious traditions of Eastern Europe and ....

then it should not be italicized, because it's not writing about the term Eastern Orthodoxy but rather about the religious tradition that the term refers to. On the other hand, if it says

Eastern Orthodoxy is the name of ...

then it should be italicized, because it's about the term rather than about the thing that the term refers to. Michael Hardy 22:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Featured Articles[edit]

Hey David - I share your enthusiasm for 1.0 but adding meta category tags to articles by using the regular category function is sub-optimal (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for why). What we need is a real meta tagging system for this type of thing. Allowing them to exist in the best examples of Wikipedia work would encourage the creation of similar categories for WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-specific things that editors instead of readers would find useful. Keeping the two types of pages separate is a cleaner way to operate. So a couple of us have removed all Wikipedia Featured Articles category tags. --mav 09:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did it after the discussion on the talk of WP:FAC ... where would have been the right place? Also, what about the metadata in the stub and VfD tags? - David Gerard 13:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See the discussion on Talk:FAC for this, but basically the stub, distute and so tags on are are about the article content, not about its 'featured' status. (They're also templates--which can be easily removed by forks & mirrors). VfD is metadata but it's only there for a short while. Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 13:10, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
Hmm, point - David Gerard 13:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Random comments[edit]

I almost left a note here yesterday because I was curious why you were opposing Kim Bruning. :-) But then I decided a nominator needs to be a little less confrontational when people oppose those they have put up for a vote. Glad to know it was a mistake, though. :-) Anyway, when I saw your vote change, I chuckled and thought I'd drop in and let you know I'd noticed. Good luck in the race for AC -- I have no idea how this whole thing is going to turn out. :-) Keep up the good work regardless, Jwrosenzweig 15:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent[edit]

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! Peace Profound! --MerovingianTalk 10:36, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions[edit]

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?

Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I shall try to get to these this evening. (I'm a bit busy at the moment, as can be told from my curiously-skimpycontributions list of late ...) I beg your patience :-) - David Gerard 15:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


His first case was for personal abuse, as was his second. Note also that he got into the personal abuse after his spam links on Iridology were repeatedly removed - he was on the article for self-promotion.

I would also have banned him from editing iridology or related articles, because of the self-promotion.

First case? I think a three-month block was appropriate, though I would have attached a pile of conditions to his return to stop him doing it all over again ... as he did. I understand he plans to take up where he left off when his current three-month ban is up.

The important thing about these two cases is they show the importance of conditions for return: specifically, do it again and you're blocked for a day.

Note that MNH has behaved this way on several other internet communities and been kicked off; there was no reason to believe he wouldn't act the same here.

On the second MNH ban, since I brought the case I have strong opinions ... I'm not sure three months with no conditions on return was sufficient. Certainly a condition against personal attacks and to obey the three-revert rule would be needed.

Good behaviour is not an excuse for bad behaviour and should not be a consideration in a case. OTOH, Cantus should have been slapped down earlier.

The real problem here is how to work effectively with people even though you believe they are drooling idiots, and how not to let people get your goat. Wik went on a rampage of vandalism because Cantus didn't get blocked.

I supplied a pile of evidence for this one. His repeated vandalism and article-spamming needed to be stomped on much faster than it was, though that's an admin job rather than an AC one in my view. I think a year off editing was appropriate.

Note that he has behaved this way on several other internet communities; there was no reason to believe he wouldn't act the same here.

I didn't follow this case at the time and can't really form a solid opinion of it looking at the evidence. But alleged abuse of sysop powers may well be material for the AC, though I'd hope there was an earlier stage 'cos otherwise it'll be flooded with cases.

If he wasn't a sufficiently obvious reincarnation, he was doing his best to pretend to be one. This isn't really AC level either.

The specific ban on revert warring looks very good. The three revert rule should be enforced more often. There are a few editors who really need to understand that ten reverts in an hour is not acceptable behaviour.

Levzur appears to be a semi-official POV pusher and a persistent one, having resorted to IPs when his username was blocked. A declaration from the AC to revert on sight is one likely outcome.

The problem here is how to deal with nationalist POV pushers, particularly when they appear to be officially sanctioned. I'm not sure a trail of AC rulings is the ideal way to approach this problem.


I just redirected this to Linux then saw that you did that before and undid it immediately afterwards. Is there a reason it doesn't point there? Thanks Kate | Talk 01:21, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Er, it does point there ... I got "#REDIRECT Linux" as the content of the page just now, and it's been that way since June - David Gerard 06:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Er, what the hell.. ignore me. I meant Gnu/Linux, but somehow confused the history with GNU/Linux and thought you'd changed it instead of some random anon. I'll just be over here finding some clue... Kate | Talk 07:07, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan protection[edit]

David, the article South Azerbaijan has been protected for almost a month now, with almost no discussion from the anonymous/new users, and they are not inactive, no, they are doing major edits on other Azerbaijan related articles. Since they don't answer to messages usually, I guess they won't be collaborative for any kind of dispute resolution. What do you suggest? Would you (or should I) unprotect, so me and User:Refdoc could try to do some NPOV-ization like what we recently did for Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijani language? roozbeh 18:12, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'll unprotect and we'll see what happens - David Gerard 19:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I am actually quite sorry about the edit summary you complained about. It was to late when I realized it could be seen this way. May I just say for myself, that user DropDeadGorgios confesses on his own page to misogyny and may not even be hurt. Still: is it appropriate to apologize or what can I do?--Fenice 20:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never mind the question - of course I apologized, on the users talk page - I assume that's the right place - I have only been here for a few days.--Fenice 20:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No worries :-) The very hardest thing on Wikipedia is how to work effectively with people one considers idiots, creeps or generally on crack ... I have made many a slip, but I honestly do try - David Gerard 15:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

structure and link[edit]

Concerning gender role: I don't quite understand why you reverted the link (industrialization, link to wiki-entry) and the grouping of headlines (I created a section and moved all existing sections that belong to the same topic in this one new section)? As a newbie you get the impression that creating links is very welcome. --Fenice 20:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just hit 'rollback' assuming vandalism when you made a personal attack in an edit summary. Too hasty of me, sorry - David Gerard 21:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars[edit]

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Talk Page[edit]

Hello David, I've joined wikipedia recently and have got several Talk messages since them, including the one from you. I'm still learning the system and am not sure how you sen a response back. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ARD. A new user.

Sam Spade[edit]

I have been reviewing the old discussions on the Talk:Pantheism page as part of my research into Sam Spade's inappropriate conduct on wikipedia, and have been for the most part confused by them. Could you help me make sense of these old discussions? What exactly was Sam Spade up to and did he do anything seriously wrong in your opinion? Cheers -- Spleeman 06:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not IMO. We discussed the situation vigorously, but I think fruitfully - David Gerard 11:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Traumatic Incident Reduction[edit]

David: You volunteered to merge this article with the other related ones. I was intending to carry out the wishes of VfD, but I can't until these are merged. Can I leave this in your hands? DJ Clayworth 16:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll get to this one, er, this evening (UTC) I think. Sorry about that, I've been drastically busy with Real Life of late - David Gerard 09:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom election[edit]

Thanks for participating in the ArbCom elections. Nice job! Danny 00:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though I also support Jwrosenzweig and Raul654, I agree with UninvitedCompany's endorsement of you and think you would be an excellent Arbitrator. You made a fine showing and I encourage you to run again at the end of the year (assuming you don't find yourself tackling other important duties in the meantime, like Official Catherder for 1.0). --Michael Snow 02:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh, what a scary prospect that last is ;-) - David Gerard 11:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi David I noticed in the blocklog that you blocked this account because it was a "personal attack sockpuppet". Who is it a sockpuppet for? theresa knott 00:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The IPs following User:Roozbeh around. Look at the edit history - it's a username that seems to have been created to attack - David Gerard 21:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There appear to be three different people talking to Roozbeh about alleged heavy handed tactics on the Persian wikipedia. There are a lot more than three IP's though, I'm having a hard time trying to work out which IP goes with which person. I thought you might know something I didn't. I read the situation differntly to you. Amir1 looks to me to be a username created to complain rather than to attack. theresa knott 22:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. In any case, it hasn't been back since that burst, reinforcing the notion it was disposable - David Gerard 22:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He hasn't logged in. Check his talk page, he may not be aware that he can edit now. theresa knott 09:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'll leave a note, but considering that page says he came here specifically to continue a fight on the Persian wikipedia ... - David Gerard 16:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush[edit]

Please go here, ASAP and vote. Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Voted. The fact or something like it could do with mentioning IMO, though (like everything in this article, or John Kerry) it needs solid references (partisan, non-partisan or allegedly non-partisan with decent verifiability) - David Gerard 21:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Cantus[edit]

Do you think I'm stupid enough to violate that rule? The 3RR states "Don't revert any article more than three times in the same day.". I did not violate this rule. Unblock me now or be sanctioned. (Cantus),

Your blatant edit warring on Template:Protected (of all places) is an obvious violation - a slight rewording doesn't make it not a 'revert'. Others appear to agree, hence the reblock for attempting to evade the ban ... twice. - David Gerard 07:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi Gerard, I just read this page. One question: What is ASB? Ropers 00:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article series box - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes - David Gerard 14:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Guanaco is preventing the removal of Irismeister abuse from User talk:Fabiform. I would appreciate it if you could rectify this situation. Thanks, Natryn 21:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just asked him about this - mentioned it was something Irismeister had spammed to several places and had been removed as spam David Gerard 23:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CGA - FAC[edit]

Sorry to trouble you, but I've (well others, too, but mainly me), well, I've done quite a few new edits on the Color Graphics Adapter article, which you reviewed as a Featured Article Candidate. You observed some style issues. Could I possibly ask you to have another look and see if your concerns still apply? Please let me know on the FAC page. Again, sorry for being pushy, but it's about to drop off the list. Last stop! ;-) Ropers 01:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to beat it into shape today! - David Gerard 13:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Done. I've also stricken my objections - David Gerard 21:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks for your work and support! (It's of course always hard to see one's work "edited mercilessly", but, well, that's what it's about here. Ok, I admit: I have made two minor changes, for appearance and for accuracy (justified in the history.) Also, I would on balance plead to leave more of the "related info" in, because it'a very relevant (e.g. a CGA XT clone at 8 MHz (ie. non-4.77MHz) might not have worked on the telly (composite modes), as the timing would be screwed up.) But it's always a compromise, so I'm happy to accept your edits. :)
Ropers 02:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
However -- and this is just to tell you -- Trixter will possibly get livid over your palette changes, because he's very knowledgable, still has the gear and (if I got that right) has in some way (I dunno, colour-meter or something) made a huge effort to determine and capture the effective appearance of the colors, i.e. "what did they REALLY look like?" The results appear to be at odds with your "official spec" colors and it's of course a point of argument which ones to go for. I'm not trying to cause a stir or anything, I'm just saying. Maybe it'd be a good idea for you to drop him a really kind message or something. Again, I do hold him in extremely high regard and I just fear he ain't gonna like the palette changes...
As for myself however, I hope that I'm forgiven if I stay out of this one. :-|
Yeah, I mentioned it in the talk on the page and on his talk page. I understood him to be saying that those hex values are in fact what comes out of an MC6845. If I've misinterpreted what he said, I'm sure he'll change it ;-) - David Gerard 11:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And you know what? The article has just reached FA status! :-) Ropers 06:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gramophone record[edit]

"I'll be glad to help with the cleanup. Anything to get it away from this bloody awful title - David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)" *

That would be much appreciated. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 05:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I've explicitly signed up for it, haven't I ;-) - David Gerard 11:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Compact audio cassette[edit]


I am curious as to why you reverted the addition of metric units to Compact audio cassette. Could you let me know the reason? Feel free to respond here. Regards. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's specified in imperial, and the change actually deleted useful information (e.g. the link to bps) - David Gerard 16:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand.
  • As far as units are concerned, the article still contains metric equivalents of imperial specifications. I merely added a few more. Is there a difference between the metric equivalents that are there and the ones I added?
  • As far as deleting information is concerned, I only I deleted the bps link. I did that because it is a redirect. It redirects to Bits per second where the article points out that the correct abbreviation is bit/s. Since bit/s obviously means bit per second, I did not take the trouble to provide the link. But it is easy enough to do. If you want it linked, that is fine by me.
Regards Bobblewik  (talk) 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I sent you a mail. I hope I didn't get spammed out. Mintguy (T) 17:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The one about Tuesday? Got that. Do you mean a later one? The other address to try is fun at thingy dot apana dot org dot au - David Gerard 17:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No. I was asking you something related to Analogue Disc Record. Shall I try to mail you again? Actually that's the address I used. Mintguy (T)
Can't see it. Try dgerard at gmail dot com! - David Gerard 18:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invader Zim[edit]

I can see you have your own guidelines regarding writing style on Wikipedia. If so, you're probably familiar with this page. Take a look at the third item. What it tries to say is, people shouldn't move efforts on standardizing articles if there isn't a good reason for it. Invader Zim is an American cartoon and nobody can deny that, but it's not a topic specific to the United States. It's just a cartoon. It works fine for everybody. The article doesn't have to comply with a certain English style. In my opinion, pushing the writing style back to American English is pointless. I reverted it to see if people could understand that. Looks like either them or I am wrong. I'm writing this just to clarify my point. I'm not trying to argue over this. Be well. – Kaonashi 20:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You reverted a change with a deliberately provocative edit summary, knowing the exact bit of the MOS that said you shouldn't, and now you're arguing the point while claiming not to? Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - David Gerard 21:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Check the article again. I ain't the only one. Looks like things backfired, eh? – Kaonashi 04:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot article[edit]

I loved your "translation" post. I've posted a few things on Slashdot to answer specific points that came up, but I think your little parable about the "experiment" is more important than any of the details. JamesMLane 21:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for supporting me during my admin nomination. If you see me on IRC, give me a PM or drop me a note on my LiveJournal. I'll try to do the same for the latter. Mike H 23:45, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

TV Naming conventions.[edit]

I am assuming that you might like to express an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hate group[edit]

David, this is not a joke for a change. Could you please take a look at the near edit war on hate group and talk:hate group. Thanks Andries 20:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eegh. I think 64 is clearly showing as a lone obsessive, though. You realise that people like this will be a perennial affliction of pages like this, of course. I'll hold off adding anything so I can fairly act if needed - David Gerard 23:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard, Thanks for your comments, I prefer the following version [2] [3], though the external links of the current version are good. Note that the checklist is unreferenced and had been changed without explanation. That is why I think the checklist should be completely removed, until there is a good reference for it. Note that Elan Vital shows up on google very quickly and quite often when searching on "hate group" i.e. hits 12, 31, 32, 34, 37, 57 (I went until there) are related to Elan Vital. [4] Andries 20:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way I have a proposal for a downsized checklist. See talk:hate group#Checklist What do you think? Andries 23:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would still be a bit close to original research. If the term "hate group" has a meaning, there must be something referable in existence ...

Re: AMD64[edit]

Sure thing, I'll make the corrections right away

Data Management Wiki Committee[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:20, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Responded on cat talk. This could be a nice wikiproject - David Gerard 14:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Series boxes and the like[edit]

Speaking of series boxes and the like, there's a big mess of them that are getting a lot of support votes on TfD because of people who don't want to see their pet boxes disappear, or, in one case, because of someone who wholly rejects the series box policy. Since I know you have about as much love of the damned boxes as I do, I thought you might want to go cast some delete votes. :) Snowspinner 18:07, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Rollback on RFAr[edit]

I'd like to ask you to watch your "trigger finger", so to speak, when using the "rollback admin function. If you want to revert changes, please explain those reversions - save rollback for dealing with known vandalism. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 14:51, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

My apologies - David Gerard 17:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Accepted, and sorry if I came off harsh. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Paul IP Ranges[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. I guess I'm beginning to take Paul's actions personally (which he no doubt intends), I should let other people handle it for a few hours. Pakaran. 15:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The more proper the response, the more it pisses him off I think ;-D - David Gerard 15:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of the graphical user interface[edit]

Look man, I changed the caption in the interests of readability. The article is written for the layperson, and terms like "X11" and "fwvm95" are meaningless to the 99% of the population who do not have extensive experience with UNIX systems (which includes myself). I thought that including the information you provided in the expanded image was a good comporomise, but obviously you did not agree or assumed I changed what you wrote out of pettyness. If X11 or fwvm95 were mentioned in the article than including these terms in the caption would be justified. I think you should either add descriptions of what X11 and fwvm mean in the "X Window System" section or consider my comporomise solution which you saw fit to revert so quickly. Diceman out.

Yoo hoo, remember the corset article?[edit]

Um, you were going to move the corset article and talk page back, after Haabet moved them to tight lacing corset ... you said 24 hours ... just being a squeaky wheel. I understand that life and stuff and things happen. Zora 08:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, guys; I noticed the problem and performed the deletion/move. —Morven 08:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yep, sorry about that, I had an attack of life! I'll try not to let it happen again ;-) - David Gerard 12:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cult checklists[edit]

(moved to Talk:Cult)

Autumn or autumn?[edit]

(From Fleetwood_Mac article)

From what I know, "autumn," or any season, really, is not capitalized, however it seems a matter of preference. See the article on autumn, which uses both ways. Is there any clarification on Wikipedia as to which should be used? Evilweevil 19:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was going on that in English, season names are conventionally always capitalised. As far as I knew. - David Gerard 20:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I guess it's a difference between American English and whichever variety you're familiar with. I assumed it was a simple spelling error or some such, unaware of it being a difference in actual language. Now that autumn article needs editing. . . . Evilweevil 20:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really don't recall seeing seasons uncapitalised in any variant of English that isn't by a semi-illiterate, American or not. It's just incorrect - David Gerard 23:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Try reading more. Tverbeek 18:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A quick search seems to indicate a genere preference not to capitalize the season names, unless they are personified ("I think Spring is showing it's colors.") or in titles (of course). Should we make a MoS entry? -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
Possibly a poll that's publicised and runs more than a few hours as well - David Gerard 00:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, not more polls. I've added it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Calendar items. It's such a minor style point, and many external sources agree with this. -- Netoholic @ 00:25, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)


David - many thanks for supporting my adminship! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Update:Category_talk:Data_management - what shall be the mission statement, goals, and measures for our project Wikiproject? KeyStroke 19:31, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

Hi David how are you? User:Francs2000 has created the above page and invited a number of British people to join.Now since you live in the UK I thought you might be interested in joining too (or at least add it to your watchlist) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You will note my name was already on the list of participants ;-) - David Gerard 15:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doh! Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: iridology.[edit]

I see. i loooked at the history and i saw him making efforts after the "your banned" comment, and i thought it was either removed or evaded. My mistake. Guess im more tired then i thought :)

-//\\//ightDragon on October 5, at 11:02

Irismeister rant deleted by Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 17:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Just in case you missed this on the Eastern Orthodoxy discussion page:

Your usage is completely idiosyncratic - David Gerard 23:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am not the author of that clause in the style manual, and far from the only person to apply it, nor is Wikipedia the only place that prescribes that usage. Michael Hardy 23:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I tried to find a different English word that rhymes with "Linus", but couldn't come up with one. It was a last resort, not a juvenile prank, and I figured most people were mature enough to handle seeing the word... maybe not. Tverbeek 18:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it looked like prank material at first glance. I must not get snotty in edit summaries. (repeat 100 times) Also, it doesn't actually rhyme quite with "penis" - I think IPA and SAMPA pronunciations would be the only reasonable way to go (if we can find someone who knows them) - David Gerard 19:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu[edit]

Could you sneak a look at Mordechai Vanunu article, I'm trying to remove its bias but would like a second opinion. I noted and agree with your previous comments. Deuxmachina 13:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it wasn't protected :-) then I'd move the Nobel Peace Prize mention to the 'Prison' section, just above the honorary doctorate. It's worth noting, but not in the intro. I'd suggest waiting until the overheated editing slows down - David Gerard 18:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

London Wikimeet[edit]

Hi David i just wanted to make you aware of this Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I've been somewhat busy since my ceiling recently fell in ... - David Gerard 22:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom elections[edit]

I'm glad you decided to run after all. —No-One Jones (m) 20:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I've been a little busy ... - David Gerard 20:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections[edit]

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Univited Company has also offered his services. I would be happy to work with him too, if that is okay with you. Danny 01:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope to be online on a regular basis again in a few days! - David Gerard 23:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suwarrow / Suvarov[edit]

In the Suwarrow Island article, you added "Russian general Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov appears as "Suwarrow" in Lord Byron's epic poem Don Juan."

In fact, the island is indirectly named after the general. The island is named for the Russian ship which discovered it, which in turn was named for the general.

I've been wondering how to better link but yet disambiguate these articles. Any ideas? Jonathunder 16:08, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Your second paragraph above looks like just about the right way to put it! I've edited accordingly. Is the ship worthy of an article? - David Gerard 23:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Quadell seal of approval.PNG

Greetings. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I shall keep it here :-D - David Gerard 17:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi David - I'm dismayed that you did a blanket reversal of the edits I did on the est page on 18th November. All of the additions I did were in an honest attempt to restore a NPOV, which in my opinion is far from the case at present. It seems to me that the article as it has been restored goes out of its way to make negative insinuations without any counterbalancing comments, or much in the way of real factual information about the courses.

I'm tempted to re-insert them, but don't want to just start an edit war especially with a moderator. What was it that you objected to?

In my opinion the qualifying remarks about the Hunter Thompson quote which have also since been reversed were entirely fair comment and enhanced the neutrality of the article. What is the point of quoting from a work of fiction in an encyclopedia article unless the implication is that the quotation is objective and factual? As purported fact, the quote is unsupportable; as an illustration of opinions which est sometimes provoked, it is fair enough - but surely that needs to be made explicit?

What is your viewpoint on the whole est/Landmark issue? Mine is that I did the Landmark Forum almost three years ago and found it a positive and beneficial experience. I don't work for Landmark and I'm not in an Assisting Program, but I'd like to see it represented fairly and honestly. Lots of my friends have done it and almost all of them report varied tangible benefits (and one or two don't). I went to an est introduction and thought it too over the top for my taste, so didn't sign up. Several friends did it and seem to get worthwhile results.

PaulDC 11:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See article talk page - David Gerard 18:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 17:57, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate[edit]

The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

ArbCom question[edit]

Hello. I'm considering my vote, and I hope you will accept a question concerning your candidacy. How do you keep your cool in the midst of a "hot" edit war or arbitration case? What techniques do you use? Thanks for your answer, and for running for the position! - Scooter 23:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In editing and talk pages: I tend to take a deep goddamn breath. Occasionally I will write what I think then tone it down before hitting 'submit'. What you have to remember is that the socially deficient don't see themselves that way ... Mostly it's just practice. I am hardly perfect at it either.
In arbitration: scrupulous fairness, I suggest. Also, just because someone is annoying and difficult doesn't mean they're actually wrong in a given case.
The main thing, I think, is to give workable decisions that generate better editing and aren't discouraging to other editors. The job is to solve the actual problem rather than meting out punishment or calling a pain in the arse a pain in the arse. If one is prone to expressing strong opinionation, as I am, then it's a matter of watching oneself :-)
(I think the current crop does pretty well at this; the only problem at present is the arbcom is painfully slow, but everyone including the arbcom recognises this and getting things working more efficiently should be eminently achievable just by the parameters of the process having become better worked out with time.) - David Gerard 00:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and your answer. - Scooter 03:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question to someone who is fairly logical and smart (that's you buddy!)[edit]

Hi David, I need some help on understanding something. I have had the Oxford dictionary of Islam quote to me by a user, and here is what the quoted:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 18761909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004

OK, I was confused to start off with, but here's how I take this: the sentence "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." It seems to me that what's being said here is that the concept of "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims" has existed since the early days of Islam, and not the term "Islamism" itself. I mean, it can't mean that or it'd be factually wrong because Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation."

Does my reading of this sound right or wrong? Am I missing something here? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this one - David Gerard 21:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hate Groups and NRMs[edit]

Care to comment on the dispute about Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements?. That section is now in RfC. Thanks. --Zappaz 01:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My head hurts just considering it. Yeah, I'll have a look - David Gerard 14:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace pages generally aren't VfD material. Not sure there is an equivalent for them however. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere on what to do with them. Perhaps wikien-l will know - David Gerard 07:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archie Pu[edit]

Being a new admin, I wasn't sure whether I could block what appears to be Archie from WP, since I heavily edited that article recently. Ah these WP bureacratic rules. Anyway you've taken the initiative so it's not necessary for me to worry about this.. I believe the article is currently (c.a.d. sans la modification de Mr P) informative amd quite fair. In my edits, I deliberately tried to remove all portions of the article which could be considered sarcastic or which deliberately seemed to make fun of A. Plutonium, without however compromising on the fact that he is a crank. Anyway I'm sure he'll return soon. I actually appreciate the information he provided on his "theories" (marginal or crank science does in itself pose an interesting object of scientific study). CSTAR 20:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was when he slipped into the first person I thought it was pretty much spam - David Gerard 20:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A name I recognized[edit]

Now here's a name I recognize (from A.R.S.) Ah, the Internet is such a small world! I was fixing an old ref on Talk:Xenu and saw your name. What has happened to Keith Henson, do you happen to know? (I don't read ARS any more, and the Week-in-Review died.) Last I heard his last chance was an appeal to the Minister, but I can't find out how that came out. Noel (talk) 14:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks! Noel (talk) 14:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I sent him email a week or two back, asking if he still needed people to write supporting letters to the minister, as requested here, but never heard back. Hope he's OK... Noel (talk) 18:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Since you have been involved with Rienzo before, you probably ought to see

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rienzo and his sockpuppets

CheeseDreams 01:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barney Gumble link[edit]

Hi there. I just navigated to your user page from the recent election results, and I couldn't help but notice that your link to "Barney Gumble" is directed to "Moe's Tavern". I know you added this link a long time ago, so I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Moe's Tavern page now redirects to the article on Moe Szyslak. I've also found that now there are individual articles for the characters that were once contained on the Moe's Tavern page, including Barney Gumble. Anyway, I just thought you'd like to know. Good luck with the Arbitration Committee. -- TomPreuss 19:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! - David Gerard 19:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Bravo, my friend, on your election to the AC -- may you serve the community well and protect us from the trolls (and their spawn, the f---heads) who threaten us as often as their parents will let them use the computer. :-) In all seriousness, I am very pleased to see you take on these duties, and I hope you'll let me know if I can ever be of any service. Best wishes, as always, Jwrosenzweig 22:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah congrats! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! - David Gerard 23:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congrats. Yes, I know, we found each other more than once at opposite end of disputes, but hey, I know integrity when I see it, so I know you will do a great job in the ArbCom, I am sure of that! --Zappaz 03:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently we're not actually allowed to hang people. How annoying! - David Gerard 09:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know you'll do well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm glad you made it on this time. There remains one small bit of election business, which is for you to choose the length of your term. As we work our way down the list of vote-getters, all of the three-year terms have been taken (seems people aren't too keen to endure the election process more often than necessary). So your options are to take either a one-year term or a two-year term. Which will you have? --Michael Snow 22:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll pick a one-year term and will run again at that time if I'm not burnt out by then ;-) - David Gerard 22:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I salute your tenacity, David. David O and Modemac, too. I tend to burn out on these things, usually ending up with a "curse on both your houses" attitude. Fishman's nonsense was enough for me. Fortunately I didn't stay long enough to see the Panoussis and Minton affairs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway/Templates/TalkArchiveBar[edit]

Noticed this was vandalized by a porn ad and you reverted. Is this happening much lately? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, I just noticed on your page and zapped it there - the IP in question has no other contributions - David Gerard 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

David, I've noticed that you've been putting in some fierce comments in the VfD. I think we share the opinion that people are far too keen on having things deleted but I think I might have strayed to a misunderstanding of the deletion policy. I've given it a close reading on your prompting and I noted the following. It's clear that "people" must be "notable" (and it notes that "some Wikipedians believe that all people are notable" -- so, erm, it doesn't actually set a bar) to have a biography in Wikipedia but I can't find a thing that suggests that there is any requirement of "notability" or anything similar for things, fictional or otherwise. Is this the understanding you are wanting to convey? I'd like to check that someone else -- particularly an editor of good standing -- does read it the same way as I now do. Dr Zen 00:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's how I read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As far as I can tell, someone pulled a 'notability' requirement out of their arse and started using the phrase. I've thought of adding a note to RTFM ... - David Gerard 09:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


7. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic.

I interpret this as meaning that every single factoid is not sacred. We're already filling up with lovingly crafted articles about individual pokemon monsters and the like which would be far better covered in aggregate and with far less nitpicking detail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But, Tony, it says that it gives a list, which it does, and that list does not include articles on pokemon monsters (YKWIM! it says no encomia but it doesn't say no articles on minor characters). It does not bar that sort of thing at all. The strong implication of WWIN is that any and all areas of human knowledge are notable so far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm really thankful to David for opening my eyes to that.Dr Zen 00:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well the list isn't intended to be exhaustive--otherwise we wouldn't need VfD. There is no implication of "notability" (your new buzzword?) or otherwise. Some things are fit for an encyclopedia article, others are too trivial to have an article about them and are best dealt with in aggregate. Normal consensual editing processes normally decide this on an article-by-article basis. Sometimes rather than just slap in a quick merge or get bogged down in a six week debate we want a quick discussion followed by a decision so we go to VfD.

A delete discussion is a nice clean way of getting a consensus for a merge without getting into a revert war with a bloody-minded editor. I used this method the other day when, in response to the appearance of a word he didn't like in a list he was editing, one guy decided to fork the list into two, one which would contain such words, the other which would not. A quick VfD and we got the articles merged back before anything serious happened. In a way I think VfD is a misnomer, it's the closest thing to a policy-making forum than I know of on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Too trivial" is just another way of saying "not notable". If you successfully argued for it, you'd find the deletionists all voting "Delete. Too trivial."
VfD as means to merge is new on me. Generally, it's a battleground where different ideas of what should and should not be included conflict (which alone should be enough to show there is no consensus to delete the articles in question), and where the community junks some of the extraneous nonsense that this project is bound to attract.
I'm sorry to clutter up David's talk page, but I'm hoping that you can be persuaded to revise your opinion. Perhaps you'll find the following (from the talk page on the proposed policy on "Importance", I think it was, but originally from the mailing list):
"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. Anon
I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

Dr Zen 01:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree with him more. I like to think I'm working on an encyclopedia, not just a compendium of trivia. There shouldn't be "a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page" because that is the kind of thing that saps the will to live of all but the most die-hard nerd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are not forced to read it. Dr Zen 01:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I have to wade through it to find out a more important fact, I am. You yourself put this very well indeed in arguing with Everyking about his "list every single factoid" attitude to Autobiography (album). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is an argument for editing articles, not deleting them.Dr Zen 02:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring[edit]

Hi David. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes redirect would be correct...but[edit]

Asking for a deletion of Subtractive color space No I should not ask for a deletion. But If you try to redirect WITH kindly explaination and are ignored and redirected back, and have paragraphs of your data replaced with incorrect data, without discussion, for days.

I could have cried and gave up.

I coud have tried mediation, but he was soooo insistant on his title and definition and would not speak to me. And truly Subtractive color space, really does not exist. Subtractive color theory, mixing methods, etc. yes CMYK color space, yes, and it utilizes the principles of subtractive color to generate its gamut. RGB space, sure

So I gambled, and was scared, but really felt his page did not have enough valid data to work from, nor would he have allowed me to change a word of it. I'm happy with a redirect. He'll just redirect it back. Subtractive color --Dkroll2 22:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

If it's a revert war, you can ask for page protection on the revert - see WP:RFPP - David Gerard 23:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Never found that page[edit]

page protection on the revert , cool. yes. Plus now I'm to mediate, and attempt a redirect again. But if the data is really wrong, including the title, it still should be deleted....? no?

Poop. I give up. The syntax and redirets, merges, etc. I'm getting too old. --Dkroll2 00:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Auto movil[edit]

Aloha. I see you've been blocking users for personal attacks, so I was wondering if you could help me or give me some advice for dealing with Auto movil (contribs). This user continues to violate policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), even after being politely warned by myself [5] and Jewbacca. Auto movil originally attacked Jewbacca on his user page, and Jewbacca has documented the attacks in the section, Quotes about me. In one message and only one message to this user, I politely reminded Auto movil about Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks, civility, and Wikiquette. The full text of my message (and the only communication between myself and the user) consisted of the following 25 words: No personal attacks. Please review official policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Calling other editors right-wing zealots is not acceptable. [6] Auto movil's response was to post further personal attacks on his own talk page, and later on my talk page. [7] His response to my polite request ranged from another attack, you're actually, since I think of it, a piece of shit fuckwad [8], to the obscene, Now I am calling you, yourself, a shit-stained, ass-snorkeling fuck puddle. And we can arbitrate that, [9] , you're too much of a cowardly, vomit-stained dog's carcass to have anything to do with fairness, [10] defended personal attacks (Calling a user a right wing zealot in public discourse is appropriate,) in a bizarre, angry rant that changed over a series of 10 separate edits to my talk page, from repeatedly threatening me on my talk page [11], to posting more attacks, (You, sir, are a piece of shit) [12], and yet another, (Did I mention that I think you're an idiot? Please let this incite you to cary this greivance to admins. Hello -- you are a piece of garbage, and you started this.) [13], to variations on the attack itself, (You, sir, are perhaps known as a piece of shit.) [14], (You, sir, are actually, since I think of it, something like a piece of shit, with whom I would love to undergo civility arbitration...Oink oink, my lovely.) [15], and then stranger comments, (OH MY GOD! did i offend somebody?) [16], after which he removed the original attack [17] and replaced it with another mocking message [18]. User has now attacked me again with, calling you a system gamer who can dish it out but can't take it...[19] and You left a note on my talk page accusing me of things, then repeatedly deleted my response from your talk page, as a coward would do, saying, 'deleted personal attack.'I'm hereby on the record calling you a professional 'victim' and system-gamer who can dish it out but can't take it. [20] . Attacks from this user have continued after warnings have been made [21], most recently on Jewbacca's talk page: I'll kick your ass next time [22] , you're acting like a pussy-ass system-gamer, and nobody likes whiners such as that [23]. Jewbacca has filed an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Auto movil. It should be noted that I have never had any prior history or interaction with this user. While the user has continued to bait me into responding, I have ignored all communication with the user other than the one initial comment where I politely reminded the user of policy. I am requesting a temporary block due to repeated personal attacks (against myself and Jewbacca) after polite warnings continue to be ignored (Since this is a lengthy talk entry, please feel free to remove this entry after you have read it). --Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The RFC looks to me to be on the right path. I realise it's painful how slow these things can be to deal with ... - David Gerard 09:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: comment[edit]

David, I don't want to make trouble; I want another user, Jewbacca, to stop making trouble. I spend 99.9% of my time here writing articles, and I'm not familiar with the procedures for squabbling. I'm sorry if I posted something in the wrong place.

I really don't want to spend time dealing with rogue users who make trouble for people. This character, Jewbacca, is a system-gamer. People like that win, because the rest of us are focused on writing and improving articles. My apologies, but this is quite a primal little situation. Auto movil 18:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Auto_movil for an analysis of the situtation if it interests you. --Jewbacca 20:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure it'll make enough trouble for me as of Jan 1st, when I'm on the arbcom ;-) At that time, I assure you both I'll be looking over everything - David Gerard 20:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alison Moyet[edit]

David, should you find time over the next few days could you look at the edit history of the Alison Moyet article? I found some edits added there recently by They were written in a dialect of that peculiar pidjin, album-sleevese, so my suspicions raised I did a copyright search and it seemed that substantial material was being copied from this external page. I asked the user not to add material under copyright and reverted. His response was garbled. He has added most of the material back, with small changes. I'm reluctant to get into a revert war over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I've left an encouraging word for them. (Assume Good Faith Even If You Risk Breaking A Molar Gritting Your Teeth.) Really, all they need do is find a second bio and mix it in - then it's not plagiarism, it's research ;-) - David Gerard 02:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)