User talk:David Gerard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

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

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

At present, I am attempting to write and add "content" to those "article" things which are apparently there for "readers," rather than doing a lot of Wikipedia admin work.

[edit] Your opinion, please

Hi! We welcome your opinion, or participation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines where we are attempting to develop useful guidelines to help solve a variety of problems. Atom 15:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP Negative or Controversial Content

In the first sentence, shouldn't "the biased or malicious content" be "biased or malicious content"? Lou Sander 14:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

uh, duh! Thank you - David Gerard 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A really sad edit

Sad because it's probably required. - brenneman ^{L} 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll note the document is very harsh on wikilawyers - David Gerard 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Nutshell

The nutshell you used at this page was out-of sync with recent changes to the policy. Also it contained more information than was in the policy box. I tried to reword it. However my version failed to demonstrate consensus, so I remove the nutshell to the talk page until we can develop a more acceptable version. Just wanted to keep you informed of what happened and why the nutshell is momentatrily missing.

As long as I am here . . . I know you read my attempt at impproving the Wikisource policy. If you cannot think of anything useful to say don't worry. But do you think my new draft was an improvement at all? Or did you find it worse than the current policy? Thanks for taking the time to check it out.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I suffered a rush of blood to the head and mass-restored deleted nutshells. I'll stop by the talk and apologise. This is what I get for not reading first. - David Gerard 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser list

On your userpage, you reference a list of stewards for people to contact with checkuser requests. I went through and corrected any inaccuracies I found in m:Template:CheckUser list earlier today, so it should be accurate enough to refer to. If nothing else, the automatic links all are verified to be working just fine. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done - David Gerard 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD: Error Code Purple

I read your rationale on the talk page for this article, but I really just don't see the place for the article in the project. Therefore, I started the AfD process. In light of the attempt on your part to explain why you began the article, I felt I should notify you of the process so you may add your input in that forum. Erechtheus 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanitas vanitarum

If the goal is to deprecate the term "vanity" within Wikipedia (which seems like a good idea based on your comments) I'd say a good place to start would be to rename "vanity guidelines" to "conflict of interest" or somesuch. Of course the page still needs a major rewrite, but it's a start. >Radiant< 11:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Trouble is we already have one of those and the merge will be complicated. Yaaaaaaay! Thankfully it's pretty clear to all that calling something "vanity" is actually defamatory unless you can be sure they were actually responsible, and in the UK at least you'd actually have to be able to prove it. BEST AVOIDED, REALLY! - David Gerard 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to merge. C of I was a proposal of some sort with little interest, so I just moved it out of the way. I suppose we could update "personal attacks" and "civility" to mention this as well, but then that makes the likely fallacious assumption that people actually read those pages on a regular basis. The next best solution I can think of is WP:TROUTwhacking people who (ab)use the term. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA used to be really short. I wonder how long the sentence "You can call a spade a 'shovel', but don't call it a 'fucking shovel'" would last in the civility guideline. In any case, no-one points at them. Rather, they say "Assume good faith!" if you suggest an AFD nomination was clueless. Or maybe it's just me and I need to learn Smarmy Point Of View - David Gerard 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there's a vexlit somewhere that will respond that according to section 3 paragraph 8 of the AGF policy your complaint is improper and therefore considered vandalistic. Or somesuch. It's all those needless and misunderstood caveats that make the 'pedia such a confusing place, and you can't legislate Clue anyway (speaking of which, there's some talk on iirc the civility page to officially outlaw sarcasm). Well anyway, I did a google through wikispace and removed the term 'vanity' in a bunch of places, including a beginner tutorial. Hope it sticks. >Radiant< 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you included a good edit summary and a talk page note, it should stick. Go back and check in case someone argues.

I can probably take credit for the outlawing sarcasm one - I blew my top at someone on WT:BLP and instead of calling him a blithering idiot quoted Uncyclopedia links. I suppose next time I should just go for it - David Gerard 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have observed that wtf in general is followed by fts, although it need not be. Metarhyme 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that a certain user is very upset that the term "vanity" was removed without a prior community discussion. >Radiant< 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Practical process

I agree so much with your essay, which came like a breath of fresh air to me; and I was relieved at your contributions today to Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources (though I disagree with the singling out of one name).

I’m relatively new and (like your “Kid”) I’ve earnestly read the policies and foundation documents, none of which sanction the reverting of good-faith edits or the tyranny of consensus in the slightest: quite the opposite. I do not see why these reverters are so reluctant to engage in normal editing process, by which I mean constructively working on a policy or article through an evolving sequence of edits, a cooperative venture which in my opinion can be trusted to produce net improvements over time (though we will sometimes go one step back to go two steps forward). Editing is dynamic: even a good-faith bad edit can move things forward if it prompts a creative response from the next editors. Reverting, however, is reactionary, especially when it invokes the consensus of some witenagemot that once met in the hills. qp10qp 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA situation

I'd like your opinion on this one... Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Editcountitis redux. It's only a partial solution but it'd be a step. >Radiant< 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block history needs investigating

Hi there. I was looking at some old VfD stuff, and came across User:GRider, and via the two Requests for Comments (1, 2) and the Arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider) I ended up at this user's block log. I see that after the ArbCom ruling there was a series of blocks for breaches of the ArbCom ruling, and then you used an indefinite block on 4 May 2005 with the note "sockpuppet - see AN/I". I was surprised then that User:Alkivar later unblocked him on 1 February 2006. I do note that GRider has not contributed since 27 April 2005, but thought you should be aware, in case something has gone wrong here (is there any way to put block logs on a watchlist?). Anyway, I'd be interested in a link to the relevant part of the AN/I archives, if you can find it, as I'd be interested in the other accounts involved in this sockpuppet business. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Removed some vandalism at Image:David-gerard.png. Carcharoth 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I wonder if you've read this section yet? I notice that both you and User:Alkivar are around and editing, but haven't responded yet to the notes I've left on your talk pages. I'd be happy to take this somewhere else, or just drop it entirely if someone could find the time to explain to me what happened with this blocking history. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GRider was the sock of another user who's since behaved somewhat better. Alkivar knows the user in question well and is mostly clueful, so I'd assume he knew what he was doing in such a case. As long as it's not actively a problem, I'm not inclined to treat it as a problem - David Gerard 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. Carcharoth 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for offering an opinion in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I do appreciate your support, and intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia. --Elonka 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That blog post of mine

Hi David, and thanks for the comment you left here. I was actually just settling down for sleep when my computer chirped to signal a new email, which turned out to be it's way of saying "wake up! Something that can wait until the morning has just happened!". Of course this meant I had to get back up and respond. :)

Generally, I'm very impressed with the way Wikipedians handle RC patrol and other, similar tasks. The job is made significantly easier by software like AntiVandalBot -- and its helpful warning messages -- and generally I think the work that the patrollers do is done well. On the other hand, with so many patrollers and so much work to be done, it really is hell to make sure that the work is done well, speaking from my experience in patrolling, back when I had the time. I can't think of any way to really remedy the problem, despite the enormity of the problem, and I'm glad to hear that you and your colleagues are as aware of the problem as I am.

Thanks again for the reply. It was refreshing to hear your thoughts on it, and to know that the problem is known about.

Cheerio, Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your asssessment of my credentials

In case you miss this in that mess of a DRV page: I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to post my personal CV in a conversation with strangers on the internet who are fond of personal attacks and incivility including comments about how deleting articles on trivial webcomics make them feel like killing people. Since I have no intention of making appeals to my own authority, what do I gain by posting my credentials? Will the personal attacks suddenly stop? Will I sleep better at night knowing that people who harrass me know where I work and go to school? Are you going to start going around saying "Keep, Dragonfiend is an expert" and "Delete, Dragonfiend is an expert"? Really, if I actually thought it would make my life easier to give my academic and employment history to complete strangers on the internet who harrass me and talk about killing, well I'd proabably do it. But my instinct for self-preservation sort of rules that out. If David, you actually think that learning more about my academic and employment record would help you stop making ad hominem personal attacks, then maybe we could solve this through mediation somehow. -- Dragonfiend 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can list the edits that you consider constitute me making ad hominem attacks on you, please do so. In the meantime, you made personal attacks on Phil in response to me noting that he is an academic expert on comics; and it doesn't matter if he were to be determined to be a thoroughly reprehensible Wikipedian and eat babies, he'd still be an academic expert on comics. He can prove it. As such, I eagerly await you proving your assertion of "super expertise" - David Gerard 01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

An example of an ad hominem attack would be [1] where you do not address my argument but rather attack my credentials, saying that I am not "an actual expert." This would be an ad hominem attack even if you did know anything about my credentials and had decided that I am, as you put it, a "nonexpert." Your statement that you are eagerly awaiting my credentials -- does that mean you've accepted my invitation for mediation? -- Dragonfiend 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between being an expert in a subject, and being an expert on what one should expect in an encyclopedia. I'm sure I could find a respected music writer who believes all these cool unsigned artrocker type bands should be in Wikipedia, doesn't mean we have to instantly agree with him. The assertion that anything which has appeared published online as part of Keenspot, Dayfree Press, Graphic Smash etc. is inherently notable is definitely not set in stone and finds many detractors. I remember way back in Wikipedia time when I actually bothered with webcomic guidelines and remember an example quoted of Big Dick's Ball, which appeared on one of the networks for a tiny amount of time. Phil was the only one who believed that it was notable, and were that link to turn blue, I would argue with it straight away. Claiming that every webcomic which appears on one of these networks is inherently notable would be the same as a blanket "every book published", "every signed band", "every beer from every brewery" clauses. When you boil down to things like notability within the webcomics community, it starts to break apart, where do we stop? What about things notable to the furry community, or the computer games community? For example, I can assure you that there are millions more people familiar with de_dust then there are with Girly, de_dust is incredibly notable to the millions of Counter-Strike players.

This is mostly academic though, I agree with Phil on this case due to the third party independent sources offered. It paints a picture that Girly is indeed a heck of a lot better than the rest of the webcomic dreck. Various comixpedia sources, a websnark thing and a WCCA nomination might not mean much separately (indeed, I have expressed my thoughts on the triviality of WCCA nominations on various occasions), but together I think it works. I do respect the views of experts on Wikipedia, an example of which is seen at Talk:Eiffel (programming language) where the inventor of the language had to fucking jump through Wikipedia hoops just to get code examples in the wikiboxes highlighted in blue, but I just feel that the importance on credentials have been exaggerated and distorted in the DRV.

On an unrelated note, I also spotted you in the Telegraph Magazine article. Good going. - Hahnch e n 02:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also delete Big Dick's Ball. Then again, it doesn't seem possible to write more than a stub about it with existant sources. (And that's before you even raise the spectre of reliability...) Phil Sandifer 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you? I can't be bothered to cycle back through reams and reams of worthless Wikipedia talk pages, but I do remember an incident when we were all debating Big Dick's Ball with you on one side and everyone else on the other. Maybe this change of heart shows why we can't just rely on credentials. - Hahnch e n 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I did support its notability. And I do think it passes notability. I just don't think it passes writability, which is also important. :) Phil Sandifer 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen: Yes, Girly is far better than 99% of other webcomics that get deleted with absolutely no fanfare. But one of the problems with the idea that "It's been part of Keenspot plus it's been written about by both Websnark and Comixpedia plus it recieved one of the a 125 or so WCCA nominations given out every year, so therefore all that combined means it has attained encylopedic notability" is that these are not independent things. There are numerous subcultures in webcomics, and all of these things mentioned about this webcomic are part of one tiny (yet very vocal when it comes to promoting what they want to see on Wikipedia) subculture. Take Girly, for example. It was once part of Keenspot. Keenspot/Keenspace originally created the WCCA awards (they still host the awards, their Chairman is a Keenspot artist, Keenspot founder Chris Crosby's mom is a committee member) and the people who vote on these awards are still largely from the Keen subculture. The girlfriend/boyfriend team of websnark bloggers enjoys Keenspot comics and they also write for Comixpedia. Of the two Comixpedia sources in the Girly article, one is written by the creator of Girly and one is wriiten by Wednesday White from Websnark. So pointing out that this Keenspot webcomic has been nominated for an award created by Keenspot and that the Websnark bloggers have written about it on their own site as well as on Comixpedia looks like more than it actually is. It doesn't say that this has had any impact outside of its subculture. David: Sorry this has drifted to your talk page. My offer of mediation is sincere and still stands. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly puzzled by something - you're clearly aware of the history and politics going on here, but you're also continuing to refer to Girly as a Keenspot comic, going so far as to insinuate that its 2005 nomination for the WCCA was because of its affiliation with Keenspot. In truth, Girly parted ways with Keenspot in 2004, and it's quite erroneous to refer to it as a "Keenspot webcomic." Especially since it's currently affiliated with a different syndicate. Any particular reason? Phil Sandifer 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, you creep me out and I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to just leave me alone. Seriously. I think you can make any point you have to make without making comments to or about me. Second, I clearly write above that "Take Girly, for example. It was once part of Keenspot." That it has left Keenspot to join a collective does not mean it has suddenly been wiped from the memories of all those in the Keen webcomics subculture. If I neglected to label it as a "former" Keenspot comic somewhere, I'm sure you knew what I meant since you are a total webcomics expert and I'm just an ignoramus with a total disdain for webcomics who makes insane claims and refuses to yield to those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic, or whatever. -- Dragonfiend 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am sorry that I creep you out, it does not seem to me to be a persuasive reason for my departure from the topic. So long as we both intend to involve ourselves in these articles - and we do both appear to intend that - we are going to have to work together on a level that extends beyond ad hominem attacks. May I ask the reason for your clear and deep distaste for the entire, as you put it, "Keen webcomics subculture?" (Which, as I said, seems to me very far from the most relevant portion of Girly's history or notability.) Phil Sandifer 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First. if you were really sorry about creeping me out you'd just leave me alone and stop your ridiculous pattern of incivility and personal attacks. There's no reason, for example, that you couldn't try to make your case that there is consensus for including articles on all Keenspot comics without referring to as "Bull" my demonstrably true statement that many Keenspot article have been deleted, and without your saying what consensus there is was created by my "shouting to get my way," and without your over-the-top claims that "Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it. That, despite this, you are unwilling to yield to those knowledgeable about the topic" blah, blah, blah. Seriously, you can comment on content without commnting on contributors, especially toward contributors like myself whom you have such a well-documented history of incivility and personal attacks towards. Secondly, the innacuracy of your assumptions about me could not differ more wildly from reality. I have no distaste for the Keen webcomics subculture. I am a member of it as well as many other webcomics subcultures. For example, you will find Sinfest (another former Keenspot comic) on my User:Dragonfiend#Some_articles_I_am_or_have_been_working_on. That I don't think every single webcomic I read would make for a good Wikipedia article should not be misinterpretted as a distaste for those webcomics. Now please, leave me alone. Everytime I see a comment from you I feel like I'm going to barf because it's going to be another profanity-laced screed about how stupid you think I am. So let's just try to comment on content, not contributors. Again, David, sorry for cluttering your talk page with this; my invitation to mediation on the topic of my expertise is sincere and still stands.-- Dragonfiend 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find your conduct on the topic of webcomics articles to be unfortunately bullyish, and find your inclusion standards desperately weird - you contribute heavily on topics from the Modern Tales end of the webcomics pool, but are harshly condemnatory of the Keenspot end of things. You're remarkably well-informed about the WCCA, but still make wildly odd claims about the comics you want deleted. It doesn't make sense to me, and I think it's destructive. I won't stop opposing you on these topics. But I've not made a single personal attack in the course of this debate. I've opposed you strenuously, and I think your standards are deeply wrongheaded. I'm puzzled and confused what seems to motivate them, especially since they seem so overwhelmingly biased towards the Modern Tales comics. Most of your contributions have been to articles regarding Girlamatic and Serializer. But both of those sites, in their entirety, rank in popularity far below Girly, and even below Checkerboard Nightmare, which you nominated for deletion: [2]. And that's Checkerboard Nightmare after the comic ended. It doesn't make sense, and it's generating a tremendous amount of ill will towards the project at large. I'm going to keep opposing it. I'm sorry if that makes you feel like you're going to barf, but, well, I don't think I've crossed any lines in this discussion, and I'm not going to accept the dismissal of my points via such an ad hominem attack. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That you think I'm a complete moron with insane claims and an ignorant perspective who ought to be banned from discussing webcomics deletion has been well-established with great profanity as has your belief that your assessments of my stupidity have never devolved into personal attacks or incivility. We'll just have to agree to disagree. And with that, for about the millionth time, just leave me alone. Feel free to try to make your points; there is no need for you to comment to or about me. Comment on content, not the contributor. Discuss facts and how to express them, not attributes of other parties. I don't think I have much more to say on this topic other than, again, leave me alone. If you can't figure out how to do this, perhaps mediation will help for you as well. -- Dragonfiend 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really think you have such a strong case of Phil's continued incivility, and consider mediation with him impossible, there is the ArbCom. From what you've said here, you should be able to present a string of convincing diffs with no effort. Mostly what I see here, though, is Phil trying to discuss the topic and you making an escalating string of personal attacks on him, even as you claim he's making them on you. Really, find someone you know in real life and get them to read over what you've written above - David Gerard 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have explicitly suggested mediation above, so, no I don't consider mediation with him impossible. My offer to pursue mediation with you, David, and you, Phil, are sincere. David, do you accept mediation on the topic of my expertise? Phil, do you accept mediation on the topic of how the two of us, after our past history, can get along while editing webcomics articles? (I'm actually not sure mediation is necesarry right now as this talk page seems to be going somewhere, but it would seem to be the next logical step if this breaks down.) -- Dragonfiend 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I raised the topic of expertise only when you did - you said "I am a Super Expert" and I said "OK, expert vs expert. What is your expertise?" You then appeared to bluster, so I asked again a few times. If that isn't clear enough, I suppose you could find a mediator to explain it - David Gerard 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the chain of events as far as the "expertise" discussion was more like this: At 20:13, 4 November 2006, you removed my placement of a speedy delete tag saying "rm spurious speedy - it's an expert undeletion." [3] You then at 20:42, 4 November 2006 left a message on deletion review about "Expert undeletion' - an academic expert on comics says it's notable, it's notable." [4] you then left another comment at 20:44, 4 November 2006 that "If an expert says "I'm an expert, it's notable," it's notable." [5]. Then I made my first comment related to expertise at 20:52, 4 November 2006 when I wrote "'I'm a Super Expert and I Endorse Deletion." [6] So, no, you did not raise the topic of expertise only after I did. In fact, my "Super Expert" comment was made only after you had made three previous references to experts. Does that sound right to you? Or do you still think we need a mediator to explain this chronology to me?

Yeah, David, the only reason why I popped up here was because of the "if an expert says it's notable, it's notable" comment. Something that I disagree with. - Hahnch e n

Dragonfiend, I explicitly called you well-informed above. It's clear from this discussion that you know your stuff. I apologize that it wasn't clear earlier, but it was honestly hard to tell considering your seeming complete lack of awareness of the notability of, say, Checkerboard Nightmare. As you well know, you were called out a lot of places on that one, so I hope my erroneous assumption that you just didn't know what you were doing can be understood. You clearly do. But that still troubles me, because the course you're taking is so very strange. Yes, you've edited Sinfest, but on the whole, your edits strongly tend towards editing comics from the relatively unpopular Serializer and Girlamatic sites (Both of which, it should be noted, I strongly support including articles from) while arguing for deletion of things related to Keen. That doesn't make sense, and it's not argued out of ignorance, so what's your thought process on it? Phil Sandifer 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You explicitly called me well-informed above? Oh, I see it "well-informed about the WCCA" -- I guess I missed it because it was sandwiched between comments about my being unfortunately bullyish, having desperately weird inclusion criteria, how I make wildly odd claims, am deeply wrongheadead, etc. Is this supposed to be some sort of change in attitude from you and an apology for your previous incorrect assumptions and put-downs about my knowledge and credentials? If so, I would welcome it -- maybe you could rephrase it in a more clear way that doesn't include quite so much negativity? Are you actually retracting and apologizing for your comment yesterday that "Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it"? A sincere apology for that as well as the worse things you've said about me in the past year would go a long way towards making me feel like you are less hostile. And I'm not sure that I do understand where your erroneous assumptions came from -- after you discovered that we disagree on encyclopedia inclusion criteria for webcomics, you assumed I must be totally ignorant and disdainful of webcomics? That seems like an arrogant, disrespectful, and unfounded assumption to make. Seriously, how would you feel if someone assumed that you were completely ignorant of a topic just because you disagreed with them on one subjective aspect of it? I mean, you've had trouble with the very idea that we might both be "experts" -- how would you feel if I, based on our differences of opinion on content inclusion criteria, went around saying "I'm an expert, Snowspinner is a non-expert, my opinion counts more than 20 Snowspinners"? Or engaged in comments like your “Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, this debate pisses the hell out of me … you're out of your mind” and posting links to your comments on blogs about your belief that “The entire treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap right now. ... deletion on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap. ... this [is] utter shit in action ... [it's] the height of ignorance," and makes you really feel "Like killing." As I said to Eric Burns a year ago when he was joining you in making similar baseless attacks against me, an apology as public as the attacks made would be appropriate and appreciated. Also, it's somewhat ironic to me that you are suggesting my webcomics knowledge may be too Modern Tales focused. I believe your first ever comment to me was your criticism that "you are very, very far off base in your understanding of Modern Tales." Maybe if you'd engaged me in discussion a year ago, rather than jumping instantly to assumptions about how far off base my understanding is, it wouldn't have taken you an arbitration case (now that was "unfortunately bullyish") and a year of ill-will to realize that "I know my stuff." -- Dragonfiend 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Going left because of severe colon overload. I'm not sure what to say here. Yes, I've disagreed with you quite strongly. This is indicative of little more than quite strongly disagreeing with you. I assumed a lack of knowledge regarding webcomics because of statements like "This looks like just another non-notable webcomic, and WP:NOT a web directory." about Checkerboard Nightmare. It's an absurd statement - one you were called out for by multiple people. And, well, you weren't terribly forthcoming with your knowledge. You're still not terribly forthcoming - I'm quite upfront about who I am and what my interests and investments in this topic are. You... are not. And your investments are strange - you slam CxN for having low readership while promoting Serializer and Girlamatic, which have less. You created Drew Weing (389 unique Google hits) while dismissing Kris Straub (285 for Kristofer Straub, plus another 163 at Kris Straub. And that's "Kris Straub" -Kristofer). That I am perplexed is, I should hope, understandable.

I could go over the explanation of your greivances again, but I won't. Suffice it to say I find your accusations every bit as offensive as you seem to find me, and I find the continual assumption of bad faith quite upsetting. For instance, as I have said before, I never once posted the Websnark link as an attempt to get personal attacks against you through the back door. I had forgotten I'd made those posts, which I made in a moment of anger, in a very, very diffierent community than the Wikipedia one. I'm sorry that I bitched about you behind your back. You frustrated me greatly, I vented and forgot about it, as one tends to do when one is blowing off steam. The linking to Websnark has never once been intended as a way of repeating those comments, but as a way of pointing to the significant points made by others in that discussion. I continue to find it frustrating and hurtful that you consistently refuse to engage any of those points, fixating only on your assumption that I must have been trying to insult you personally when I posted that link.

I was not, and am not. I'm trying to understand your arguments and respond to them. All I seem to get in response is demands that I cease doing so, and assumptions of bad faith. That would merely be annoying if you seemed likely to depart the topic. Instead, you continue to advance this view and agenda I'm unable to understand while refusing to engage with any attempts to discuss it, deciding they must necessarily be in bad faith. They are not. I assure you, they are not. And if you are unwilling to engage with them at any level of assuming good faith instead of dragging up year old comments and assuming bad faith in them so as to take them as evidence of bad faith now, or, more frustratingly, to bring up David's comments as evidence of my bad faith, well... I don't know what to do. It's not an angle that lends itself to useful input in these discussions, and it's not an angle I find myself able to take seriously or to suggest ought to be taken seriously. And I'd like to take it seriously, because it seems passionate and intended in good faith. So, well, I'm asking you to help me do that. Phil Sandifer 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with some of your past assumptions (and that includes some expressed as recently as yesterday) is not that I believe they are in bad faith. I don't believe your bad assumptions were deliberate; I do think making such assumptions is a mistake, and you'd be better off if you tried to take more time and gather more info before making such assumptions about people. The manner in which you expressed those assumptions (through personal attacks and incivility) obviously didn't help things. It has made it to the point where when I get the little orange box telling me I have a talk page message my stomach tightens up because I'm afraid that it's going to be the start of another series of over-the-top attacks against my intelligence and knowledge. I apologize for expressing that in terms like "you creep me out" and "I feel like I'm going to barf," but I was at a loss to describe any better the damaged environment that some of your extreme comments towards me have created. This also has off-Wiki effects as well -- I was being encouraged to submit to the 5th Annual Conference on Comics: World-Building: Seriality and History, but when I saw that you were involved I backed out. Your recent change in tone may make things better. My encyclopedia content inclusion criteria is pretty simple: Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I can find these for Nowhere Girl. Sluggy Freelance, and Drew Weing, but not for Girly. That you have a different inclusion criteria that seems to include some blogs, popularity as measured through Google hits and Alexa ranks, or your own opinions as an expert are just things I hope we can just agree to disagree on. Hopefully we can, as I've suggested many times, continue editing while discussing content rather than contributors. -- Dragonfiend 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that you don't abandon the conference - it's a good conference, and I'd love to see some good webcomics papers (I'm not far enough along on my webcomics chapter to present anything of it, or else I'd fill that gap myself). As for the rest, is this a new thing? It certainly seems that your nomination of CxN was based on basic measures of popularity. In any case, I point out that the stringency of sourcing is a major reason why WP:RS is collapsing rapidly as a guideline, and is something that has been being worked on actively in terms of sources - measures that would note that, for instance, Eric was put in place as editor of Modern Tales, has written introductions to collections of webcomics, and is clearly an expert on th subject whose self-published comments are notable. This is, I think, a vital shift, as the previous guidelines (Similar to the ones you're arguing here) led to such ludicriousness as Spoo, a featured article that is based entirely on sources that nobody with any knowledge of Babylon 5 would doubt, failing to pass RS. And Jimbo has noted, though I'm honestly not sure where, that the definition of reliable source is different for different topics. I bring all of this up largely to underscore the reasons for my strenuous objection - because the viewpoint you're taking causes so very many problems in so very many areas, and does so in a way that, when applied aggressively (As deletion, removal of content, etc necessarily is), it drives away contributors. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for Deletion - Clock Crew

As an experienced member of the Internet Community, having owned a computer for over 9 years, and frequently hopping between hundreds of various internet communities, sites and forums over the years, I would say that the Clock Crew is indeed notable on the popular flash portal, Newgrounds.com. While, you may have never been to the website, or have ever even heard of it, knowing that you are apparently an old goon and a huge bureacratic jerk - you fail to realize that in fact - yes - in fact - that the Internet has a culture of it's own indepedent of whatever Classical music or balets that you listen to or watch. In fact, I'd testify that "All your base are belong to us" is millions times more hilarious than "[The Importance of Being Earnest]]" - And probably more culturally significant.

Newgrounds.com is a significant staple of that culture, and is one of the most popular flash websites on the Internet for original flash submissions and content - especially with younger kids and teens. Thus their slogan - "Problems of the Future, Today!".

Here is the one of the two sole Keep (and the only sensible vote mind you!) vote, written by an unknown user, I can't find his IP from the history pages of the delete page.

* Keep: Anyone been to ClockCrew.net recently? The Clock Crew is still very much alive and it has always been a phenomenon. Considering there are still Clocks posting on Newgrounds today, that the Clocks have influenced the creation of many groups and crazes, and that Wikipedia has documented far lesser known fads, I think this is a piece of history that should remain in the archives.

Wikipedia should be used a little more constructively, not destructively. It's always - always - debatable as to what is important and isn't. And I think that the Wikipedia audience and authorship is skewed more towards the academic/nerd crowd, so therefore, they're going to biased with all their professionalism bullshit, no? And I think that the essence of this very bullshit is why you guys swiftly declared by democracy the destruction of this page.

Hey, who needs book-burning?!?!?! We can vote out the books from our libraries!!!! This is a swift request to bring back the article in question, openly adressed to all who voted to delete the article. Reply to me on my talk page.--Mofomojo 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(what on earth? - David Gerard 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Regarding Generic Character

I notice that you have blocked him for Copyvio. Could you tell me what sort of copyvio it was? He made a number of edits to some Freemasonry articles, and I would just like to know if we need to review them. Thanks!

PS: While I'm here, I would also like to direct your attention to User:Dwain/Freemasonry_Page as to what I believe is a violation of the userpage policy. I have asked him rather politely to remove said page, but the demeanor he assumes on his userspace makes that outcome somewhat unlikely. MSJapan 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert Undeletion

Hi,

I've tried to have discussions with you before and it hasn't gone too well; you've said things that slightly irritated me, and I'm sure vice versa applies, if you even bothered to notice me. Nevertheless, today is a new day -- especially in my native US, where foolishness has been dealt a severe setback -- so, I'm in a very happy mood, and ready to try anything! :)

Regarding expert undeletion: Your own (and Phil S.') argument won the day at the Girly DRV, which I just closed, and I have some thoughts. Lawyers (I'm one) deal with expert evidence all the time, and I absolutely agree with you that it should be accorded more weight. When an expert shows his credentials and speaks reasonably, this occurs naturally -- unbiased people accept expertise, as long as the expert is genuine, and the recommendation not too far afield from common-sense. That said, the consensus of reasonable, impartial laypeople (called the jury) remains at liberty to ignore an "expert" if 1) the person's credentials are false or non-existent; or 2) if the expert's contentions seem truly unreasonable, particularly in cases where an expert might be biased.

Now, Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor a bureaucracy; and I would never suggest it should be. However, the principles applied by courts here are, I think, sound ones to modify to Wikipedia's benefit. If a policy/guideline on expert opinions is to exist, it should: 1) acknowledge the common-sense truth that people respect and and require expert input, and it should give experts authority where no reasonable unbiased laypeople can be found (ie., in AfDs stuffed only with newbies, SPA's, or admittedly-biased non-experts.) In short, in bad AfDs -- and there are quite a few of these -- it should be perfectly acceptable for a closer to defer to an expert, even in the face of a flood of unreasonable, biased laypeople. But, in good AfDs -- where reasonable Wikipedians show up and voice their opinion -- an expert can be "defeated" in the argument if the consensus is that his expert opinion is too far afield from common sense, or is itself riddled with bias, or is otherwise defective. In short, experts' opinions should be able to override "goofballs" (using the term loosely), but not sensible Wikipedians who disagree. Of course, in most cases, as at Girly today, sound expertise will win solid support among reasonable laypeople.

Does this sound like a fair formulation to you? Best wishes, Xoloz 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo crosses the line

Can you take a look at Talk:David S. Touretzky and User_talk:ChrisO#Request_for_a_comment? It's bad enough that Terryeo, already banned from editing Scientology articles, would troll by trying to elicit comments from two other editors about a libelous Scientology smear page against them, but his further comments to Touretzky regarding his alleged "terrorism and bigotry" are unconscionable, and, IMHO, grounds for a permanent block. This goes beyond mere trolling and personal attacks, and enters the realm of libel. wikipediatrix 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to second Wikipediatrix's comments, and to add a reminder that this is hardly the first time Terryeo has engaged in smearing the personal character of editors--he had a sort of "enemies list" of "suppressive" editors on his user page until he was pressured to remove it, and at one point he salted several links to the "wikitruth" stalker site that "outs" the identities of various wikipedia editors. His history of personal attacks (which verge onto threats or, as Wikipediatrix says, libel) combined with his regular disruption of Wikipedia policy pages and Scientology-related talk pages renders Wikipediatrix's call for a permanent block fully justified, in my view. BTfromLA 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just permablocked him. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:David-gerard.png

Needs a license ;) --Cat out 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL default when I uploaded it, darnit! I'll add a tag :-) - David Gerard 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Space opera in Scientology doctrine is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antediluvian Rocking Horse

David,

As an expert in Australian independent music, I would be grateful for your input on this outfit. The Melbourne Age has published something on them [7] as has the Sydney Morning Herald. The Ollie Olsen article claims that they have collaborated with him. The article is currently listed on AFD as at 1 December. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rename Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Since you commented "Would Space opera (Scientology) be a better title?" on the talk page for Space opera in Scientology doctrine awhile back, would you take a look at other possible renames currently being discussed there? Thanks. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR instruction creep?

Hi there! Given your earlier essay on nuking things from orbit I'd like to have your vision on this discussion where we consider that the 3RR may be more trouble than it's worth... (Radiant) 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavid_Gerard_5b9e.html"