User talk:David Gerard - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 13 November 2007 (→ANI threads regarding blocks of Dr. Fluffy: indeed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:26, 13 November 2007 by Lar (talk | contribs) (→ANI threads regarding blocks of Dr. Fluffy: indeed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wikimedia Foundation

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than the English Misplaced Pages, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/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 - 30 Aug 2007)

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.

You can tell I've gotten sucked back into admin work by the fact that my talk page for May was as long as for January to April.

cricket no pic.png

David,

You've just replaced Image:cricket no pic.png with Image:Replace this image1.svg on hundreds of cricketers. I wish you'd read the talk page for Image:cricket no pic.png, or discussed it on WikiProject Cricket first. We had a long trial with both methods, and a long discussion, and advertising for images just led to enormous numbers of copyright violations — people just stole images from all sorts of commercial cricket sites. So we found it very counterproductive to use that and decided to use a blank image instead.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been adding it to every bio page I can for a while now. Because it has gained us quite a few free images, particularly on living people. It will get copyvios, but so will allowing uploads in general - we deal with them as they come in and keep the good stuff, as per letting anyone edit the encyclopedia. I use it because it's been effective elsewhere in getting us free images - David Gerard 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But it looks horrid and looms over what is a fairly neat template for cricket careers that a lot of people have worked on. Please stop, at least until the cricket project has discussed it further. Johnlp 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a free content thing (Foundational), not a local project thing. Do a better SVG? - David Gerard 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

David, that comment was unhelpful and not in the spirit of collaboration. I agree that the new image uglify the articles big-time, and as said above, the issue has been considered in the past and the no-image option was considered the way to go for the cricket project. What other projects do is their business. You really should revert your AWB changes. —Moondyne 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think we do need direct request for images, and to filter the copyvios as they come in - because the direct requests do work to get us new free content, i.e. what we're about. However, the present images are indeed horribly ugly. There's discussion on the Village Pump of less hideous placeholder images. The initial proposed replacements would be an immediate improvement, but I'm sure we can do better - David Gerard 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage

Hey, your famous! You also have a few older mentions. -- Jreferee 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another day, another spammer ;-p - David Gerard 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Head's up

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Proposal:_NEW_Spoiler_Templates

This could get very nasty. Milomedes is involved. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that editors of good will, meeting in a spirit of good faith, can resolve any differences in a decent and proper manner. I've added a comment - David Gerard 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the issue is orthogonal to his concerns. I think the definition of "spoiler" on the wrestling pages needs to be carefully worked out--most of the time I think they're concerned with material that is poorly sourced in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A laudable attitude, and one that often needs pointing out. Thanks for that.
No, this isn't a sign that I'll be participating. I'm still not quite back to normal from last time. --Kizor 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Piperdown

I'm reviewing this user's unblock request. Can you please take me through how you came to the conclusion that xe was a meatpuppet for overstock.com? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, and hope you can clarify it for me. Thanks in advance for your help, David. - Philippe | Talk 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Answering via Misplaced Pages email - David Gerard 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Piperdown

Hi David. Can you point me to the evidence that Piperdown is a sockpuppet of Wordbomb? I can't find any indication that a checkuser was performed, much less confirmed. The sock template on his user page says to check his contribution list for evidence, but his contributions don't seem to add up to a picture of a Wordbomb sockpuppet at all. Where is any of this discussed? Thanks for your time, --G-Dett 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers don't require a request. If you were an admin I'd point you to various deleted pages ... Any admin wanting to know, ask here and I'll tell you via Misplaced Pages email - David Gerard 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but are you saying you did a checkuser and got a confirm? I know the deleted pages you refer to; I read them before they were deleted. They included substantial material from Wordbomb's very public, very well-known-around-here website, and if I remember correctly they acknowledged this. Was this your evidence that he's a Wordbomb sock?

I'm sorry to be pressing the point, but I've read Piperdown's posts and contributions across a number of pages, and for a range of reasons find it exceedingly unlikely that he is WordBomb. I am also concerned about appearances of propriety and due process when an established editor is banned for sockpuppetry on undisclosed grounds, without any discussion on Community Sanction Board or elsewhere. The effect can be rather intimidating, and it may well send the message that it is simply impossible to raise COI concerns, no matter how well-founded, without risking perma-ban.--G-Dett 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to detail everything here, for trivially obvious reasons. He wasn't blocked for "raising COI concerns." And WP:CSN should have been deleted when it was nominated for deletion - blocks and bans aren't and never have been a voting matter. Admins receiving a plausible unblock request, please leave a note here and I'll email you back via the Misplaced Pages email function - David Gerard 00:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider emailing it to me, even though I'm not an admin?--G-Dett 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:204.15.84.2

Hi, since this IP is shared by many people (a look at the contribs shows that), I decided to change the block into a softblock (ACB, of course), and to make it for 3 months only. Your comments are of course appreciated :). -- lucasbfr 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked its edit history (IP and logged-in) and mostly saw long-term vandals and trolls I recognised, certainly over the past few months. I'll keep an eye on it though - David Gerard 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made it a hard block again, because Judd Bagley or a minion was right back again using it. Also, I can see lots of usernames through the IP, but most or all are Bagley/overstock.com. (ps: Fuck off, Bagley.) - David Gerard 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Woooops I didn't see you were a Checkuser! I added the {{checkuserblock}} notice on the page. -- lucasbfr 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that template existed! Most useful :-) - David Gerard 14:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling fans arguing that their project can vote to turn Misplaced Pages into a pawn of the wrestling companies

I saw some comments from your related to this subject... You may be interested in this. --Gmaxwell 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN

It's a pity that some people insist on using that page as "votes for banning" - the idea was simply to have somewhere we could debate and record decisions which are obvious to all without the need to burden ArbCom - restricting editing of articles by highly conflicted editors, for example. I don't know how to fix the problem, though. Consensus appears to be that we have the right to issue a topical ban as a community, where it is obvious, but with of course a right to go to ArbCom if the editor feels aggrieved. ArbCom does not scale well and is IMO poorly suited to obvious and simple cases. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:213.219.59.99

Could you take a look at the unblock request on the talk page linked above? The user claims to be suffering from a block placed by you at the request of the sysadmin. S/he also claims to be the sysadmin and that no such request was made. Your input would be appreciated, especially since the block log is empty. Range block? - auburnpilot talk 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Johann hari page

Hi david. Despite you clearly saying Private Eye's front section shouldn't be used as a source, Felix-Felix is still asserting that it is right to ignore this and include the libellous allegations against Hari, as you;ll see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Johann_Hari&action=edit&section=42

He is insisting on his right to use BLP violations. Isn't it time to ban him from editing this page, when he is obviously full of hatred for its subject? 81.129.156.202 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, David Gerard. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Blazecat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blazecat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Querulous?

The editor in question (Jenny at Penguin) was creating and/or editing a fistful of articles about her employer's authors and books, in a blatant display of COI (but seemingly more naivete than ill will). The notability tag was pulled; but I don't think the COI tag was even remotely querulous. --Orange Mike 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean the tag itself. It's not something that's helpful to a reader, it's something only of use to someone who's deep in Misplaced Pages - David Gerard 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Given Misplaced Pages's perennial problems with COI, I don't really agree. Perhaps we should discuss it on that template's talk page? --Orange Mike 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Roshan Abbas

Don'understand. You appear to have added an image to a stub that just made it look worse. Was this a mistake ? Victuallers 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Living bio, no image, added the "if you have a free-content image please add it" image. I appreciate the image is probably uglier than it needs to be - see Village Pump discussions linked above. Requesting an image this way does actually work to get us images, so I've readded it - David Gerard 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Abart

Honestly ... do you think this article is improved by this image. Ask someone else pleae. Some of the articles you have done look OK but wasn't it obvious there was a picyute missing. There is a very nice template that makes the same message that appears on the talk page. PLEASE discuss Victuallers 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in many places. 💕 means free content means asking for free content that's obviously missing - David Gerard 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, most of your changes look OK but the one you recently reset looks very poor. I understand the policy but adding misaligned images and ones that hang needlessly at the bottom of articles looks poor and I find it difficult to believe that that is what the policymakers had in mind. I did look at Aaron Abeyta which you recently did and it looks great. Surely you can rethink? I would be interested in seeing where it was agreed to add this image to every imageless article. Victuallers 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for Shimon Adaf

I'm too lazy to do this, but there is a free image on the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. You could download it from there and upload it back here: Image:Shimonadaf(not that it's a great picture of him, kinda goofy-looking). --woggly 09:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Cool, thank you :-) - David Gerard 09:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Free images

Is it really important placing that non-free picture in every single biograghy that doesn't have a photo on it? The sunder king 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on experience, I think it will net us more than a few good free content images. So I'd say it's definitely worth the effort. Also, I'm working from home this week and it's really easy to edit with AWB with one hand while entertaining a small child :-) - David Gerard 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot

Hey there. I put up some semi-stats on my talk page in answer to your query. — Coren 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sayidlost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sayidlost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR for X Window System

X Window System has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthphonia Suprema

I marked it A7 because it had no indication of whether they were a signed band, whether they had any sort of press coverage. If the mentions of links to other notable musicians disqualify it from CSD, I'll bear that in mind in future.

Also, it turns out the text of the article is a copyvio of the biography section here. Would that be legitimate grounds for a speedy, or would it be better to reduce it to a non-violating stub and let the article be judged on the notability of the band? Thomjakobsen 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Try AFD if there's any question as to the speedy suitability. (Anything there that was clearly a speedy tends to get zapped anyway.) You don't have to speedy everything, and A7 is the shakiest ground for a speedy - David Gerard 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Simon Caney

I've added some additional info to the article. Yes, I know that Professors in England are granted the title after meeting high achievement levels and criteria. I'm unclear whether it is always a higher standard than elsewhere.

Regarding levels of Speedy on Misplaced Pages: the articles you referenced on my talk page are interesting but I find them less than persuasive. With the growing visibility of and dependence on Misplaced Pages, I remain critical of allowing questionable articles to remain. Do some need time to be refined and filled out? Yes. But by the same token, increased visibility means more people are taking advantage of WP to create articles which don't meet basic notability criteria. Should article subjects be investigated before putting them up for Speedy/A7? Yep. But they aren't always because there is little in the information in the initial article to suggest notability. Giving all initial stubs without any supporting documentation the benefit of the doubt is less than ideal in my opinion. I realize this is an elitist attitude vis-a-vis the encyclopedia anyone can edit but, to paraphrase Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I an editor too?"

By your standards, an Oxford professor is automatically notable. I tend to resist the notion that certain positions or membership in a group confers automatic inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps I am part of the problem posited by the critical articles you cited: too eager to limit the scope of the project, to be conservative in judgment of inclusion. My concern is that Misplaced Pages not become a mere collection of information. (I won't insult you by linking to a policy with which you undoubtedly are more familiar than I.)

Of course all this is beside the fact that Simon Caney is probably notable and I should have looked a little further before tagging it. More interesting to me is finding that Magdelen College doesn't have an article which it very obviously deserves.

I've certainly made a number of mistakes in tagging articles with A7, particularly in the last week. I've already begun pulling back from such overzealousness but I felt like giving you a thoughtful response on the subject because... well, because I felt like it. I don't do it expecting persuade you from your perspective. I think of Misplaced Pages as a collective project which works best when people share their views and visions of the project. So I clutter up your talk page with stuff probably better suited for actual group discussion. I can be a little ill-focussed sometimes. Cheers, Pig 18:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries :-) CSD A7 is really problematic because it's got a lot of subjectivity to it and a proper AFD nom is a pain in the backside and so forth. But it's used very subjectively and so I started looking at the actual levels of it. I must note quite a lot of the stuff so tagged deserves the quickest death we can manage, so my cheers and admiration to the valiant dredgers through the sewage firehose of Special:Newpages - David Gerard 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I mostly wanted to express that I share your concern with a WP "culture of deletion" and assure you I'm striving to develop a balanced approach and attitude about noms, speedy and AFD. Additionally, I'm feeling particularly moronic for having said that Magdelen College, Oxford doesn't have an article, not noticing the misspelling of Magdalen College. It's at times like this I'm glad plenty of other people check over my work on WP. ;-) Pig 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution on edit summaries

Re: the "clearly erroneous" A7. Inclusionists and deletionists should be able to work together on Misplaced Pages. There will be differences of opinion but that doesn't mean one editor's opinion trumps another's opinion. Your history indicates a tendency to remove speedy delete tags. In my opinion, if you feel a tag is unjustified, you should do something to improve the article, if you truly believe it is salvageable. In any event, you should use edit summaries with neutral language. Edit summaries with comments like:

bogus a7, notability blatantly asserted
bogus speedy
clearly erroneous A7

are your personal assessments, and could be seen as attempts to discourage other editors from continuing their efforts to clean up Misplaced Pages. Please consider neutrality to be a worthwhile factor in edit summaries. Thanks. --- Taroaldo 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's not bright line it's not a CSD, full stop. Your talk of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" merely muddies a bright-line criterion. You do realise I personally deleted about half the stuff so tagged I saw? - David Gerard 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Gifford-pinchot.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gifford-pinchot.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

David, if you can't find the correct info to prove this one is PD, there are numerous replacements available from the Library of Congress' photo site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I got it from a PA state site, so presumed US PD. But yeah, there's gotta be a federal PD image of him. Not worried about this particular image, it's only illustrative, but I can't imagine there being no federal images of Pinchot - David Gerard 09:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FYIFV

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article FYIFV, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no gold here. I'm sure there's plenty more to be farmed, though - David Gerard 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kerryangeltrap.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Grothendieck image

Hey, I noticed that you put a "no free image" tag on Alexander Grothendieck today. While, strictly speaking, this is true, the image that is there has been provided a fair-use rationale and it is not thought that free images exist at all, or can be created. There was a discussion about this at WikiProject Mathematics in June or so; did you follow it? This point has been agonized over already and putting the tag there doesn't seem like it will result in the improvement you desire; we looked, and nothing is out there. Do you think that the rationale is invalid, or would you simply prefer the image to be free? Ryan Reich 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: the discussion was at Talk:Alexander Grothendieck#Photos. Ryan Reich 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, a wikiproject can't override Foundation policy. See WP:NONFREE - David Gerard 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Our EDP takes into account situations "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" this would appear to be one of those situations. Generaly the placeholder should only be used where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be posible to get a free image.Geni 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that we had a discussion over what to do with this image, which concerned whether or not a fair-use policy was justifiable. We decided it was. The link you provide was our guide in the discussion, which makes me think you haven't read that discussion at all. All the fair use criteria are addressed, so we have followed "Foundation policy". Where were you when we did this, and what makes you think you know better? Ryan Reich 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry - yes, if he's damn hard to get hold of then of course that's different - David Gerard 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Like I said, this was a troublesome issue for us for some weeks. I'd remove the tag but it's already been done...Ryan Reich 16:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Casually referred to as the J. D. Salinger exception;-) - David Gerard 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WP:RFAr/RFC

no free image tagging

Hello, thank you for your contributions.

I noticed you did a widespread copy and paste job on many articles requesting free images. This appears to be destructive to many articles, especially short articles. The image you added requesting free images often pushes much more relevant information down the page or messes up the article layout.

Please revert or fix many of these additions to place the request for free image below other infoboxes. I may take to RFC seeking comment if ignored.

This would not have triggered a response if the requests for free images were carefully added to the articles in a non-intrusive manner.

-- Guroadrunner 08:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They produce free content contributions of pictures, which is this thing called the "mission of the foundation." You are welcome to try to vote out the Foundation mission in an RFC if you feel that's productive - David Gerard 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there's active work going on to secure good free images as replacements, thus improving our content for everyone - see this article today by Durova for an example of outreach to publicists - David Gerard 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He has a point actually. Although of course we want free content for everything, slabbing that on every article can be an eyesore. Are you planning to add this to everything or are there guidelines in place for which article do and don't have them? Wizardman 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Closest would be Misplaced Pages:Fromowner documentation. I personaly would limit it to articles where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be posible to get a free image but other than that I see no reason to limit its deployment.Geni 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been sticking to living people - we have almost no excuse for anything other than a free image when it comes to living people (see above the J. D. Salinger exception, for noted recluses). Basically, the main problem is that they make Misplaced Pages look like a work in progress ... which it is. They're as appalling as {{unreferenced}} or {{stub}}, and for the same reasons. The placeholder images themselves are probably just a bit too jarringly ugly, and I will be having a hack at this aspect sooner rather than later - David Gerard 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me get to the point: I agree, and am in accordance with you, that seeking free images is important, and spurring the searches is a good idea with the "free image please" image. However, what you did was slap it on the top of Misplaced Pages articles without integrating into the infoboxes. Not cool. Please look into each and fix these or give a proper rationale why you chose to do a haphazard job on those, lest they be vandalism.

I also agree with Geni's assessment. A lot of the additions are for "private-public" figures: They have a publicly visible role, but that does not mean they are a public figure whose image should be put up. -- Guroadrunner 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the term "vandalism", and you don't appear to understand what Geni said either - David Gerard 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your response to "what you did was slap it on the top of Misplaced Pages articles without integrating into the infoboxes. Not cool. " ?? -- Guroadrunner 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not ideal, I'll be trying to take more care with these - David Gerard 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, go ahead - my complaint with the last recolouring was that the colours were quite frightening (bright purple, if I recall correctly - thoroughly undesirable) and that it was just done on one person's steam (you know much better than I do that these images can rub people the wrong way, and making a big change without half the community's written consent will always raise a massive fuss). I should probably check out that village pump discussion; I was wondering how hard it would be to have new fromowner images for politicians, for actors, for authors and so on, without people yelling about over-compartmentalisation? Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the new one was actually more garish than the old one. Dunno that compartmentalising them would be useful except when the actual placeholder image is different (and the -male and -female variants are much better than the old -1 variant, or the quite singular Image:Freeimage3.jpg ... I'll tweak the colours on this one (a soft blue and a soft grey, low contrast, a nice sans-serif font) and see if they make people choke less - David Gerard 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just replaced Image:Replace this image male.svg - see here. Let's see what happens - David Gerard 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protoscience

Hello -- I just discovered that nobody ever notified you that Category:Protoscience, which you created back in 2004, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be very much welcomed. The discussion is now in its fifth day, so it may close in the next day or so (I may ask for it to be relisted because there have been very few comments thus far). Cgingold 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Spoiler

You may find recent events of interest. . --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And here I am all out of monkey dung to fling - David Gerard 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Template:SA-mastereditor

I've put this bit of silliness up for deletion. Could I get your opinion on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Funniest. Comment. Evar. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Figured you might be interested, but I've totally rewritten that article. Took me two years (no kidding). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one?

I saw you blocking and reverting Learntruck55 as a sock, and based on a specific common purpose (The creation of a seperate Terri Schiavo‎ medical article and then removing the content from the Terri Schiavo‎ page) do you think user:Blindedservant is a sock as well? I'm not sure. Thanks! Gscshoyru 22:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Well spotted! And a pile of what look like sleeper accounts too ... - David Gerard 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard

Hi David, I have noticed that you have sometimes mentionned about a famous painter called David Gerard. Yet I don't quite think there is an article on this guy, (under that name). If he doesn't have an article do you think he's notable enough to have one? The sunder king 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The painter is Gerard David :-) It's possible I would barely rate an article, but I've evaded it so far. Thankfully none of the references are on the web - David Gerard 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png

You originally uploaded this image, but nowadays I have seen that it is more customary for images to have "Detailed Fair Use Rationale" sections, in addition to the brief descriptive "Summary" section and license tag. Since you were the original uploader and know more about this particular image and its origins than I, I thought it best to allow you to add a Fair Use Rationale section to the image's page. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I formatted it a bit, hope that's alright. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Thank you :-) That image is my favourite example of why fair use is a good thing for the encyclopedia, even if it's grievously overused by many ... - David Gerard 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. But also why it is a good thing that fair use is allowed, in general, legally, ahem, cough cough. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

India Arie pic

This IS NOT India Arie. The owner of that photostream was probably just calling/labelling the pic that bc whoever/whomever that youg lady is is dark, had her hair covered, played the guitar. I guess even admins make mistakes huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.99.177 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, bother! - David Gerard 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested on WP:BAN changes

Your comments would be appreciated here at WP:BAN policy discussion. I am inviting you to look this over because I don't participate at the admin IRC channel (due to lack of time) and would appreciate perspective from the regulars there. - Jehochman 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clairebabylost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Clairebabylost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Charlielost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlielost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Desmondlost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Desmondlost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blazecat.jpg

Larger thumbnail

The trouble with this is that it makes it smaller for people like me who default to 300px thumbnails. There is no real solution. Publicola 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look

Check this unblock pls: User talk:Ildmur. He only had one edit when you blocked him and you said he was a sock. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

Thanks for the comment on my discussion page. It was a lot of fun to get the photos of Zap Mama for their article. Reservoirhill 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

X Window System

""citation needed" right next to the actual reference?" The given reference does not provide an independent assessment of the "de facto" standard wording. In terms of factual quality, it's just another Mark Anthony speech. Tedickey 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly ... it's an "everybody knows" (it sure wasn't happening elsewhere) ... but of course that's not backing. If you're this T.E. Dickey, you'd probably be someone with the paperwork to hand that could actually back it up ;-) - David Gerard 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so - but private copies of email aren't as authentic as online references. I could (may) build up a case to support the cite. Tedickey 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if there's paper anywhere, that's even better than online references - the early history (up to XFree86) in X Window System came straight out of the intro to the book in the references ;-) - David Gerard 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Ozymandias (starship)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ozymandias (starship), by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ozymandias (starship) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ozymandias (starship), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews comments

Thanks for your edits on this, I think it looks much better with the bolded "Don't be a jerk" - suitably blunt and attention grabbing that it is at least the one thing people will pick up if they don't read the full page. --Brianmc 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lockelost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lockelost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hannibalpic4.PNG

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NMOEScovercolors1.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Michaellost.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Michaellost.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Fair use rationale for Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI threads regarding blocks of Dr. Fluffy

Just wanted to let you know that your blocks of User:Doctorfluffy and User:AndalusianNaugahyde are being challenged at WP:ANI#User:Doctorfluffy and WP:ANI#User:AndalusianNaugahyde, by user:Gavin.collins. There's also a peripherally related discussion on User:Pilotbob at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. I'm sure that your input would be helpful in resolving these discussions. -Chunky Rice 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes added to ANI - David Gerard 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see and the next diff where I revert myself... I've a mind to grant this request just to see what happens, and undertake to keep an eye on he/she/them. But I don't unblock without checking with the blocker and/or getting consensus so... your call, what do you think? Yes, I know they're likely actually socks and playing me to the hilt. But maybe this one time my mentorship will work. (and maybe, maybe, the horse will sing!) You can reply here, I watch. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And never mind the implausible assertions those were IBM IPs ... *sigh* if you really feel like it :-) - David Gerard 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a peanut gallery here, we're dealing with obvious socks that clearly know the ropes enough to have a well-phrased philosophy. I don't think lack of clue is the issue here - I honestly have a very hard time maintaining an assumption of good faith here. It looks to me very much like deliberate disruption of the encyclopedia by trying to start and maintain contentious AfDs. Given that, for instance, Doctorfluffy has no recent content edits to the mainspace, what is gained by unblocking? Phil Sandifer 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

David: I don't feel "like it", it's more like I feel I ought to... "sigh" indeed. I'm going to take your reply as agreement to lift. Phil: what is the gain? Very little, other than to waste my time monitoring the situation. (some may think that's a net gain to the encyclopedia project, but I digress... :) ). But I also see this as setting precedent for coming down harder next time although the ruleslawyers will argue that every situation is different, I am thinking of turning my response to the Dr. into an essay on the topic of why we don't have the need (based on cost benefit analysis) to be perfect in our admin actions... ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)