User talk:David Gerard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikimedia Foundation
 This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 3 (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 4 (1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2006)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 5 (1 Jan 2007 - 31 Dec 2007)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 6 (1 Jan 2008 - 31 Mar 2008)

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.


Contents

[edit] AWB and Infoboxes

I will thanks.--Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we use images from other language Wikipedias?

For example, there is an image of Christian Quadflieg on the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Is there some way we can used the image that's there? If so, how do we link it? Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's under a free licence, so that image could (and should) be transferred to Commons and used here from there. Keep the same name if possible and mark the de: copy as also being on Commons - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No free image

Your edits to add this image placeholder to drivers in the British Touring Car Championship have resulted in problems with the pages. You've added the image not only to the infobox, but below the navigation box at the bottom of the page. See Rick Kerry for an example. Please can you fix these pages, and be more careful when using AWB to make widespread edits in the future. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh bother. Sorry about that, I'll go in and fix. Thanks for alerting me - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. That was a regular expression being overenthusiastic. I am in fact writing them more carefully now for precisely this sort of problem - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, looked like it was just picking up on any template named BTCC rather than the BTCC infobox in particular. Seems all fixed now. Not sure how successful the image plea will be, especially for older drivers mind you. AlexJ (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What sometimes happens is you get an enthusiast who happens to have a collection of old shots, sees the placeholder and thinks "I've got pics, I'll add 'em to the 'pedia!" That's always nice. I have two boxes of photos going back twenty years of Australian indie rock bands that I need to scan and upload, for example (e.g. Image:1989-01-02 Kim Salmon at home 3.jpg) - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey David, there is something wrong with your changes. They are adding the pipe at the end while also adding no space between pipe image and pipe imagesize. --pete 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering that a minor blemish when it happens as it doesn't affect page content, but I've tried (and will try harder) to make it smoother - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm extraordinarily confused on Mary Robinette Kowal's Wiki page. The image I uploaded was removed, with something regarding copyright, despite the fact Kowal publicly gave me that image, one she owns the copyright to, specifically for her Wikipedia page. The permission, as well as her telling me which photo to upload, is viewable by anyone on her website. Yet despite everything I told Wikipedia, it was still removed and your tagline is requesting an image on the history page. Please advise, as it smacks of far too much CYA and not enough CS on the administration's part, and you seem knowledgeable. Many thanks.ThorneyDayna (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images of dead people

David, got a another question about what you are adding. The statement "only free-content images are allowed for depicting living people. Non-free and "fair use" images, e.g. promo photos, CD/DVD covers, posters, screen captures, etc., will be deleted - see WP:NONFREE"
I understand it some what. But what about dead people? Is it ok to add non free pictures of dead people? Curious as to what the answer is. Thanks --pete 09:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living people are almost always removed immediately (the exception being noted recluses like J. D. Salinger, and there may be one when it's arguably depicting a historic event rather than the people in it per se, etc., etc., arguments continue for another 100 talk page archive pages). For dead people, nonfree images are usually more tolerated, but (like any fair use) each and every case would need justification on a per-article basis, possible arguments with the querulous at WP:IFD, etc. For now I'm just openly encouraging people to think in terms of images of living people as contributable encyclopedic material, and it seems to be netting a few :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --pete 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free image placeholders/opera singers and other classical musicians

Hi. In the past participants in the Opera Project and similar classical music projects have preferred not to have the kind of 'Free image needed' icons that you are currently attaching to pages. Would it be possible to leave them off classical musician pages? Or possible to put them on talk pages? After all they are directed an editors and are not of much interest to readers. What do you think? What would be best? Best wishes. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They are in fact directed at readers, and work to solicit images from readers - the typical case is someone who happens to have a pile of pics and the placeholder lights up a lightbulb above their heads for "Hey, I have a pic of that!" There's no reason living singers the opera project claims would be intrinsically more difficult to get good photos of than any other singers - less reason, in fact, as they tend to work longer. And a living bio without a photo is arguably an article that is not finished, and pretending it is is simply incorrect.
Wikiprojects aren't allowed to tag articles with their interest in project space (ever since the Pokemon project tried putting in an article series box advertising themselves on the article and promptly got slapped down), they can only indicate an interest (rather than "ownership" per se) in talk space - if I'm to avoid these for you, how would you suggest this be quickly determined from the article space text? (e.g. the word "soprano" does not indicate the opera project exclusively or even close to it) Please help me here - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am obviously an idiot this morning. I've set it to skip on the word "opera". Buhhhhh. - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. The main cats for opera singers are :
Are these usable? I see you have just done Barbara Bonney and Brigitte Fassbaender - both opera singers, so I'm wondering how you are selecting the pages you are processing. Maybe I can suggest something else? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Female singers recursive, in Category:Living people, no images in the article. And now skipping on the word "opera" as well - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now got it skipping on the strings "Category:Opera" and "opera-singer-stub" (case-insensitive) - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems to be working. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moratorium on free image placeholders/opera singers and other classical musicians?

Hi. Would it be possible to stop all work on these while the debate is on? As you will know there is strong opposition to the use of the graphic on all pages (not just opera singers), see here. Thanks again for your cooperation. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What debate are you talking about? Is it specific to classical musicians? I wonder if we should open this up to WP:RFC as it seems to arouse strong reactions from multiple quarters. -Pete (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See the proposal here. It's not specific to classical musicians. The proposal is to suspend use of the placeholder pending a full centralized discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. -Pete (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image request

Hi David, I wanted a link to a discussion of the rollout you are undrtaking. I got my answer in a conflicted edit: Image talk:Replace this image female.svg#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages. Regards, cygnis insignis 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi, I am the creator of the article, Justin Masterson. I just wanted to say thanks for adding an image to that article.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] captions

Can you remove any caption there may be when you supply the placeholder image? Hangovers from older versions lurk in the template waiting to reappear. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Going forward, I mean. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to zap them as I spot them ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You missed two. This is an outrage. Oh, okay, great! 86.44.28.245 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WP for schools

By the way we are planning a major new revision in May. Meanwhile since you commented on it being a benefit from the project, have a look at the rubbish one of our volunteers has been finding on the years pages: [1] Cheers --BozMo talk 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review for Image:Giafront.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Giafront.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Really good idea? I thought it was obvious? I'm also rather surprised at how discussion has died down (somewhat, I know it's not really me) since I arrived. Does no one like the idea of a trial period, or am I in the wrong time zone? :-) BTW, as someone who is in the UK and in London (I think), could I get your opinion on how the BLP issues with the Ian Blair article were handled. See the page history and the talk page, and my comments here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that particular article was resolved. However, I'm thankful we still have editors like Doc glasgow and JzG on the coalface of OTRS, whacking away at dodgy BLPs with the BLP Machete of Encyclopaedic Quality. I don't think it matters for us to have grey and tepid BLPs for now, or indeed a lack of a given bio - we have years, we don't have to be finished tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Which is why I favour shorter, bare facts, BLPs, rather than the proposed deletion process. Get people working on the BLP backlog, rather than arguing at BLP-AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, more mailing list ramblings. You said here that "This is why the lead summary of articles is *vastly* important. It must be a complete standalone short article in itself. By pushing this stylistic rule on en:wp, we can make it a better encyclopedia and more reusable for those without internet connections." I thought this was already stated at WP:LEAD? That says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." I think most competent editors are aware of this, though there are problems with short articles that teeter between being a stub (like Martin Barry) and the slightly longer articles that aren't quite long enough for a substantial lead, such as John Allan Broun. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I see it ignored in a lot of cases - long article with one-sentence intro. I thought it'd be worth emphasising considering it actually worked for our reusability - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a template somewhere, where you can request an expansion of the lead section. Actually, I don't think, there must be something like that somewhere. Nature and a vacuum and all that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder images - haven't got involved in the debate, but I noticed the placeholder on William Henry Perkin, Jr. - would you or someone be able to generate a list where old pictures (ie. of dead, usually 19th century or early 20th century) are needed, and in particular those where public domain pictures might exist (ie. order them by birth date or something). I have some experience of searching for old pictures like that, and would gladly tackle a task like that. It gets tricky though. For example, see here and here. BTW, how on earth did you distinguish between men and women? Looking for "he" and "she" in the articles? Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A request for old pictures tag is an excellent idea, probably for talk pages rather than articles (they're not so easily fulfilled by readers). Yes, I looked at every article and picked "he" or "she", which is why you'll see some edits with summary "whoops" where I went back and fixed it :-) That's why I used AWB (where you glance over the wikitext and press the big green "Save" button personally each and every time) rather than get a fully-automatic bot approved. The male/female versions are way nicer than Image:Replace this image1.svg, the genderless version - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing a category or list. :-) I'll quietly avoid the question of a "request for fair use pictures" tag for dead people where existing photos are still in copyright... Maybe that should be handled by a "request for people to write nicely to copyright holders and try and get at least one reasonable quality freely licensed picture" (I'm actually serious about that). Otherwise you get the situation at Wikipedia talk:NFC#Replaceable images of dead people. Compare Image:Gene roddenberry 1976.jpg (free license) and Image:Gene Roddenberry.jpg (non-free). Are we really stuck with the former for the next hundred years or so? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category intersects?

Hello. On the enwp mailing list recently you mentioned something about category intersects now being tested seriously. Any chance you can tell me where about so I can sneak a look? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the URL of the test implementation, but there's serious discussion of an implementation suitable for Wikimedia - and specifically, Commons and en:wp - in progress right now on wikitech-l. It's in the foreseeable future! \o/ - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks David. I'll notify the CFD regulars as I suppose they'll be rather interested in this. Should make things enormously simpler. Like you say, \o/ ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I talk about you

I talk about you at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform#The BLP claim is not true saying "as David likes to say "a hard assed implementation of the other policies" and as he likes to leave out an insistence on treating living people like living people and not like a building or some other subject of an article (which was Daniel's original complaint - people told him they could edit his article anyway they liked so long as it met wikipedia policies and any harm it caused him was none of their concern).". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't leave that out (all the time) - it's so as not to be dicks about it. A lot of our PR problems come from editors being dicks about things. I think the point is that when you're dealing with real, living people, it's all a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your close of the AfD on election controversy articles

Your close deletes all the more specific articles. By my count, the tally on whether to delete those articles was 7 yes (and that's counting the 4 delete-everything comments) and 7 no, except that it would be 6 yes and 8 no on the "vote suppression" article because Protonk wanted that one deleted.

Given such an equal division, I don't see how anyone could maintain that there was a consensus for deletion. Your explanation of your action doesn't assert consensus. Your explanation seems to consist of saying that you would have responded as R. fiend and Sjakkalle did, although they were a distinct minority.

I realize that AfD's often stir up strong emotions, and that the closing admin on a controversial one like this is often criticized, so I don't mean to attack you personally -- but I'm very upset at what seems to be an increasing tendency to discard the consensus standard. I just rechecked to make sure I hadn't missed a policy change. The rule is still as I remembered it: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'." (from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion)

I suppose that actually tallying numbers will horrify the voting-is-evil crowd, but here's how I assess whether or not there's a consensus to delete the daughter articles: Delete 7 (PhilSandifer, Bonewah, Kironide, Eusebeus, R. fiend, Sjakkalle, Atyndall93); Keep 6 (JamesMLane, OptimistBen, Klausness, Kevin Baas, RyanFreisling, Avenue); Delete "vote suppression" but Keep all others 1 (Protonk). Therefore, there is no perfect consensus or even rough consensus for deleting any of these articles.

So, from here, I suppose there may be a DRV, and there will almost certainly be ferocious edit wars at the one remaining article, as the extensive information in the others must either be removed from Wikipedia or all crammed into what was supposed to be a readily accessible summary.  :( Maybe I'll have to do another spinoff article, so that we again have a succinct summary, and the whole cycle can begin again. JamesMLane t c 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" means "a result everyone can probably live with", after all. But you are quite correct that not much will stop a really determined bunch of edit warriors - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't share your interpretation of consensus, but, even on your view, sometimes there is no result that everyone can probably live with. The AfD indicates this to be one such case. What would stop the deletionists from further edit warring would be the application of the long-established general rule, that a lack of consensus defaults to keep. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that definition of consensus seems very odd. I see the current decision as being closer to the Judgement of Solomon, but I suspect here neither side will let go of the baby. -- Avenue (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems also that articles have been deleted, redirected but not merged, why?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The merger would be a huge job with ferocious edit warring every step of the way. The minority of editors who wanted all this material expunged from Wikipedia have now achieved partial success. They will fight against the merger line-by-line. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't the removed pages just be cut and pasted in the destination page?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
They could be, and that would certainly be better than losing the information entirely. I'm disinclined to do the work involved in implementing the AfD close because I strongly disagree with the close. If you do it or someone else does it, though, I could put some time in on the task of removing duplication. (Some of the material from the deleted daughter articles is already in the summary article.) If you want to go ahead, just don't be surprised if your merger is promptly reverted by the people who wanted to remove all this information from Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and as someone who clearly has a dog in the fight already, I think David's move is better than deletion (the position I initially advocated) - the information is still all there and readily accessible in the article history. People can now carefully go through, vet it, make sure it passes all of our policies including that it be significant, and add it to the article as needed. The information is not "lost," but is now, effectively, there to be culled and worked through. All of the improvements to the article that were promised during the debate can now take place, but we can avoid having very bad articles on the subject in the mean time. In that regard, it does seem like a win for everyone - those of us concerned with the very poor quality of the existing articles are now mollified that they are not being actively served up. Those who wanted to improve them can do so at their leisure. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If all the information that some people think "passes all our policies" were included in this article, it would be too large to be useful as a summary. That's why half the Wikipedians who responded preferred to have a comparatively succinct summary article, with the details covered in daughter articles. Of course, this isn't a problem from your point of view, because you hold a radically different idea about what information qualifies for retention, which is what drove you to the (improper) venue of AfD in the first place.
You write, "All of the improvements to the article that were promised during the debate can now take place...." Even if we assume that improvements were "promised", you are clearly incorrect if you're implying that this AfD close somehow magically removes some unspecified previous obstacle to improving the articles. The practical problem is the extent of the disagreement about whether a specific portion of this material "passes all our policies". There is no improvement in our coverage of this subject that can be made now that couldn't have been made a month ago. What we've seen instead is enormous time and energy diverted to the AfD, with a good likelihood of further diversion to a DRV. Look at the reverts between Kevin Baas and Bonewah at this history. Bonewah wants to import some material from the "vote suppression" article into this one, enough (in my opinion) to impair its usefulness as a concise summary. Kevin will presumably want to import much more. There's no reason to believe that Kevin will suddenly acquiesce in the excision (or exile to article history) of extensive material that he thinks passes our policies, just because you and Bonewah think it doesn't. The AfD close merely ensures that (1) arguments about voter suppression will be mingled on the same talk page as arguments about exit polls, and (2) whatever the outcome, there will no longer be a concise summary article, even though 9 of the 14 AfD participants wanted to retain a summary article. JamesMLane t c 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isnt going anywhere, why not give the merge process some time to work? If, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, your fears are realized, you can make the case to revert as nothing ever really gets deleted on wiki. All I ask from you is the opportunity to try and make the merge work. Bonewah (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not blocking that opportunity. If you start merging stuff into what started out as the summary article, I won't interfere with that process on the grounds that the details belong in daughter articles. On the other hand, it's still my position that the deletion of the daughter articles was against policy (because not supported by a consensus). If your request means you want an assurance that there won't be a DRV, then, sorry, but I won't give that assurance. I'm mulling what to do. JamesMLane t c 22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, all i want is to start the merge, if you want to do a DRV then just leave a note in the discussion section, if you would. Bonewah (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor procedural point: an old AfD note was added to the talk pages of all the redirected articles, but not to Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies. Although that article's nomination was withdrawn partway through the AfD, more than half of that talk page is now taken up with discussions of the AfD and its outcome, so it seems odd not to have such a link back to the AfD. I've added one now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of magazines of anomalous phenomena

I have nominated List of magazines of anomalous phenomena, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magazines of anomalous phenomena. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Re: this. I find redlink lists by using "what links here" on redlinks... There is also Category:Red list. Not sure how easy it is to find them using Google or the internal search engine. I suspect database queries are a better way of finding redlink lists (ie. pages with large number of redlinks). Any idea who could generate such reports? Of course, redlink lists with only a few redlinks left, or blue links pointing to the wrong pages, would not show up that way. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Please let me know the reason I was blocked for 1 week. Anthon01 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placeholders and AWB

Hi David, not sure how closely you've followed the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders discussion, but I have a question for you.

As I've brought up there, it seems it's been amply demonstrated that the placeholders are controversial. This is not to say that the addition of them by any means was a bad idea; I fully respect that you and everyone adding them did so out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia.

However, the AWB rules state that it's not to be used to make controversial edits. So in hindsight, it seems those semi-automated additions were in (unwitting) violation of that rule.

I'd like to use AWB to reverse those semi-automated edits, with an edit summary like: "Undo automated addition of image placeholder. Feel free to add it back if it's appropriate to this article; or, use this alternate system."

The "alternate system" is one that's still being worked out, but in essence it would function the same, using a small bit of text in the infobox instead of an image.

Anyway -- I just wanted to (1) see how this approach would sit with you, and (2) if you like it, ask for your assistance in using AWB for this purpose, as I lack technical knowledge of the tool.

Thanks, -Pete (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like mindlessly literal proceduralist bureaucracy, and quite precisely WP:POINT - that is, going out of your way to invoke something you actually don't want to have happened. At best, it comes across as an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection, but thanks for taking the time to reply. If you'd like to explain it more, I'm all ears, but as phrased I can't make sense of it. -Pete (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non free. living person

This edit removed a picture I added. Why? --CyclePat (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat, the image you added had been deleted a couple weeks before David's edit (with the edit summary: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image." When David added the placeholder, the article was displaying not an image, but a dead link. -Pete (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination)

Hello, David Gerard. Not to be rude or anything, but I was wondering what you meant by this comment, which leaves me somewhat confused. Thank you. :) Valtoras (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That, quite simply, that's not what "indiscriminate" means, and as such the nomination itself is of low quality - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I misworded,and ultimately misinterpreted it. But my biggest argument was that the article itself didn't seem necessary - it didn't appear encyclopedic. Of course I'm wrong, but I had no prior understanding of whatever defends this list. I read WP:LIST and saw nothing that specifies how this is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, though nothing appears to be opposed to it, so I suppose it's acceptable. What really made me nominate this article for deletion was that an article of similar type (Video games that have been considered the greatest ever) was deleted due to being an indiscriminate list. I admit to being unsure of what exactly that meant, but seeing as how that article was indiscriminate and POV, this one must be as well. And even if it's not, then why wouldn't we have just re-written the article (the one that got deleted) from scratch? Valtoras (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Moller and the AC

FYI, you may want to weigh in to what will need to be a public discussion. The AC has zero authority over raw content matters, sadly. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very sweeping assertion you're making there ... that they choose not to in almost all cases does not mean it isn't the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Erik_Moller_protection, so we can get a wide clarification of this. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Fishman

Is there any administrative history (such as a prior deletion) that I should know before creating an article about this guy? I think there's a fair amount that could be said about the fraud case, the libel case, and the Wollersheim case, as well as his history in Scientology (so far as it can be determined). Not just the affidavit. WillOakland (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of off the top of my head. Worth floating at WT:SCN as well, obviously - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

For the push on bugzilla, the interwiki list has been updated now which will make it easier with the next update of the Schools Wikipedia. Cheers --BozMo talk 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remember your comment about "Ta bu shi da yu" and [citation needed]?

According to "Tbsdy lives" at User talk:WAS 4.250#lol!!!! "Ta bu shi da yu expresses his amusement and is somewhat interested in buying a shirt. He would like to add that he's interested in the creator's ideas and would like to subscribe to his newsletter." and he would like that message "added to WikiEN-l (if not too late)". WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox issues

If you're going to make mass changes like this please ensure you don't break the coding. I would appreciate it if you check all pages you've done this to, especially MPs. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Weinek

Hi, I have translated this voice from the German. could you help me in the grammatical correction please? thank you very muck--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just playing politics - a little to the left - a little to the right ...

  • (28 September 2005) "Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni, a painter by profession, is no stranger to criticism. Over 20 years in office he has been among the most controversial cabinet ministers, frequently locked in conflict with the NDP and Islamist politicians as well as left-wing oppositional intellectuals. In what was perhaps the fiercest campaign against him to date, last week Hosni was blamed for the disastrous fire that broke out at the Beni Sweif Cultural Palace during a theatrical performance on 5 September -- a tragedy that killed some 48 spectators and injured more. It was in the wake of that incident that he tendered his resignation to President Hosni Mubarak last Wednesday. Three days later, responding to the pleas of some 400 high-profile intellectuals, the president decreed that Hosni should resume his duties. "Despite conceding the ministry's accountability, I had the most to lose in such a disaster," Hosni later declared. "But I realised the charges were directed against me personally, even before investigations began. Feeling I had embarrassed the regime, I decided to bear the political responsibility myself."" - http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/761/profile.htm
  • and of course all the hot water in got in with his veil comments last year. He's playing politics to protect his friend President Hosni Mubarak. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Linux update

I was looking at the Wine AWB bug, hoping I could someday run AWB, and wondering if I could interest you in trying the latest 1.0-rc1 and the latest AWB and seeing if anything is better. I'd try myself, but I don't think I could really give any useful backtrace data and contribute to the bug report usefully. It appears it's getting there and it would be great to be able to use. Thanks - Taxman Talk 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Might do, actually! Thanks for reminding me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] better placeholder images

shadows of people
shadows of people

[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-May/093766.html Anyone think they can come up with better placeholder images?] Take pictures of shadows of people with interesting backgrounds. shadow of a man's head with a funny hat. of a woman's head with long flowing hair. of a dancer's body shadow. backgrounds: brick wall, beach, grass, side of a truck, etc. use a variety of placeholder images, not just two. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one to think about, yes! - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Logo

Update: User:Thue has created Image:Wikipedia-logo-en thue.png to replace Image:Wiki.png, and the large version without logotype, Image:Wikipedia-logo thue.png to replace Image:Wikipedia-logo.png.

He has laid out some of the details at meta:Errors in the Wikipedia logo.

Contact him for any further information, and let him (and/or the thread at WP:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement) know if anything else needs to be done. But I think that's everything covered? (Please pass along to whomever relevant. I wasn't sure whether to email you, or the hidden mailinglists, or to leave a note here!) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note, whilst the relevant people are thinking about the topic, it might be a good idea to plan out the rest of the characters on the hidden-from-sight puzzlepieces (if they're not decided already), so that the 3D Versions and Physical versions can develop further. User:Metaeducation might still be interested and helpful for that. Just a thought. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

I have nominated Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching the students

Re this mailing list pot:

  • 6) Delete PR fluff when you see it. (this entry is a good example. You could do this page a big favor using only the delete key)
    • "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where anyone can delete stuff" - what fun!
  • 7) When you see articles tagged for Notability, add sources until you can delete the tag. You can usually find enough through Google News.
    • Hmm. Indiscriminate sourcing is not always good.

The other suggestions were very good though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per your request....

Here you are - some short answers to some questions. I'm still not sure this will actually take place though - look at User:FritzpollBot/FAQ. If you can think of any more questions, please give me a shout Fritzpoll (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: create millions of improperly sourced article with MICROSOFT spam by bot

While I love the idea of using a bot to create articles on real places with proper sourcing, the test cases created so far by User talk:Fritzpoll have improper sourcing and include a spam link to Microsoft. This is unacceptable. I tried noting it on an example and was reverted, so I am saying so here and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. What would Microsoft pay for 4 million articles that say

*[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx Search for ______ in the MSN Encarta atlas]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup this sunday

Can I tempt you along to Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10? This Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser activity

Would you be able to comment at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I thought you'd be interested

Seen a lot of on-wiki and off-wiki discussion about this, so I thought you might like to see the result at WP:GEOBOT - it seems we have consensus Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

*champagne* :-D I think a reasonable level of human review should keep people happy with the results in practice - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)