Misplaced Pages

User talk:David Gerard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:52, 9 March 2007 editJguk (talk | contribs)15,849 edits WM← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:05, 8 January 2025 edit undoIruka13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,114 edits Notification: tagging for deletion of File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg.Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots}}

{| width="80%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#FFFFF3;" {| width="80%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#FFFFF3;"
|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" |- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
Line 7: Line 9:
|} |}


Past talk: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Past talk:<br>
] (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)<br>
] (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)<br>
] (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)<br>
] (1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2006)<br>

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ] requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to ] 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 Misplaced Pages admin work.


Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.
---- ----
{{Boxboxtop|}}
{{User MAW 400}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}


== ] == == Warning messages ==


Hi David. I don't know who to ask about this, but thought you might know. There are a few sources that have come to RSN that aren't really in need of full deprecation, but that are wasting editors time by being reused and readded. Take for instance ], a source that was both UGC and circular but was needing continuous clean up by the editors of the astronomic objects project. Ultimately deprecation was used so a warning appeared if you try to add it, stopping it from being a timesink. But really it didn't need the other aspects of deprecation. I was looking to find out how we got to the current deprecation process, and how editors went about getting it setup, as part of thinking about a slightly different solution for these sources. A different setup with a warning about UGC, self published, circular sources etc, rather than the deprecation one. I'm waffling on. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, you inserted a HTML error:
:so the history is the looooong RFC on the Daily Mail, which then opened a process for ruling other sources such obvious wastes of time that they could be similarly classed as almost never to be used - I would go through the deprecation RFCs in rough historical order to get an idea of how it developed as an idea.
:UGC is its own class of thing, and you can see the reasoning behind deprecation: that some editors are so persistent in wanting to use known bad sources that you eventually have to make a rule that says "no." Even as all new rules are bad - ] (]) 14:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


==Happy First Edit Day!==
your code:
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
<nowiki>... <a href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable organization">charity.<br /> </nowiki>
{| style="width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em; border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: Yellow;"
correct code:
|style="text-align:center"|]
<nowiki>... <a href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable organization">charity.</a><br /></nowiki>
|style="text-align:left" width="100%"|Happy First Edit Day, '''David Gerard''', from the ]! '''Have a great day!''' ] (]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Regards,
|}
--] 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:King Trigger River 7&#39;&#39; Chrysalis 1982.jpg==

]
:''']''' <small>whoops.</small> - ] 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

== Oversight ==

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

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

== London meetup ==

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

By the way, it turns out I was right in my suspicion that we knew each other (at least in passing) from dealing with ]—you arbitrated the ], and later posted your own report about his activities at ]. —] 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

'''Update:''' Jimbo . This is now happening '''TUESDAY 9th''', same place. You may care to ] - ] 10:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== KDE is not ferret-compatible ==

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

== Lembit Opik photo ==

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

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


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

== Commons and reuse of GPL/LGPL contents ==

Hello David,

I have read and written my answer at ]. ] ] 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== Cheryl Cole ==

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

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

==Marti Pellow==

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

== #wikipedia-en-admins ==

Will you set me up on the channel as well? I won't be there every hour of every day (IRC is disabled at work), but I'll be there often enough once I am invited. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]</small></sup> 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like Interiot has taken care of it, so no worries. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]</small></sup> 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==Mcginnly's block==

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

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

::Some people ]... ] 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Help needed with posting to wikitech-l ==
I have a serious case of gremlins - tried several ways of posting to that list for a week and ''nothing'' works. Sigh. I see you are one of the contributors to that mailing list: could I ask you to repost my letter? It can be copy&pasted easily from ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you!--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

==Random smiley==
{{User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2}}
] 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


== Checkuser ==

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

:Err, I don't think Kelly is talking about putative CheckUser ''results'' here, but rather reasons for doing the check in the first place:
:* "multiple accounts": Giano + Giano II
:* "possibly been subjected to impersonation": Giano II (who could, in theory, have been someone trying to impersonate you, rather than a new account)
:(Which is, I think, an entirely silly way of summarizing the situation; but it's not actually ''wrong'' in its factual aspects.) ] 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::That it explains it then - fine. Obviously a misunderstanding in my part. Apologies David for dobting your dicretion. ] 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== ''Signpost'' and OTRS ==

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

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

== ] ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Ah, good! Yes, it should be possible to upload it to Commons with a copy of and link to the permission. I have ''no idea'' about the proper way to note permissions on Commons, though ... - ] 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::It's there now: ]. Permission is noted using Commons' standard template, so that should be alright. ]<small>|]-]|</small> 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

== Uncyclopedalated. ==

] --] 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Durin is really doing the figures thing at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard ==

Durin is doing an incredible job at ], explaining all the problems, in response to Michael Snow.

He really has gone into great detail analysing RFA there.

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

--] 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

== You're going to Siberia, USA! ==

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

==Brick 'O common sense==
]

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

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

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

:::I'm uncertain how the above relates to myself. Does it? More generally, I feel it is questionable for the project to allow pedophiles to identify themsleves as such and that this could prove to be a public relations disaster. But if the Wiki Establishment has opted to perpetuate the practice, I won't bang my head on a brick (of common or otherwise sense) wall. ] 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::The arbitration decision was that we want the project to be open to people of different beliefs, and when editing articles, for those people to come together to agree on a consensus version. At the same time, we don't want people s' self identifications to bring the project into disrepute. And if it sounds like these two goals are mutually contradictory - yes, we are well aware. Which is why we (the committee) are going to take pre-emptive measures to stamp out any effort to stir the pot, as we have done here. Or, to use an old metaphor - it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
::::So to answer your question directly - no, this is nothing personally directed at you. It's just that we are making a concerted effort to prevent another huge blowout. ] 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. Do you intend to take any measures about the self-identification? Let me be blunt: there are powerful commercial and otherwise forces hostile to the project which may exploit any indecision on that front to cause us very bad publicity. We are in agreement on the need to prevent another blowout within the Misplaced Pages, but my fear is (which perhaps you could address for me) that this could come at the risk of a 'blowout' in the mainstream media. ] 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::That's not an easy question to answer, and I'm not Solomon - I'll give it my best shot though. I think, perhaps, it would be best if we judge people by the edits they make, and not their self identification. To this end, a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy might be best. ] 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough; but let me be more blunt with respect to the ''-don't tell'' bit: does the committee intends to prohibit this self-identification? Are you considering concrete steps at this time? ] 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::We're not discussing it at the moment because we *just* found out about this last night (I noticed it and raised the alarm on our mailing list). The consensus was to shoot that thing in short order. Beyond that, I/we/they are not really aware of an ongoing problem. If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. If you want to press the issue, you could file a request for clarification on the issue. ] 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I am very pleased we see eye to eye on this. I found David's comment a bit difficult to parse (I, however, would like to remind him, or at least state for the record, that I was never involved in an edit/] war even remotely related to this set of issues, ever). I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I will try to author a request for clarification soon (which, incidentally, would have been my first choice, before adding it to existing policy, and I certainly would not have been in favour of the aforementioned WP:PEDO-specific policy proposal &mdash; I explain the reasons for my participation in that effort with my response to Kim bellow, and ]). Thanks again for articulating the Committee's position (as well as your own) so clearly. They are fortunate to have you as a member. ] 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Darn, the page has been deleted. Not really fair, now we have a secret brick of common sense! --] 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:The edit the brick refers to was ''15:14, 21 February 2007 . . David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) (Protected Misplaced Pages:Pedophiles: um, no. The pedophile wheel war is not meant to be an annual derby. )'' ] 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:: <g r i n> I second the brick of common sense. --] 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) <small>''Hmm, now I wonder if having a separate usertype who can still read deleted revisions would be worth the while. (I'd like to encourage some of the older admins to hand in the bit, so as to stress the "no big deal" concept.) ''</small>
:::Kim, basically, there was a section that began with: "It is acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage..." &mdash; which I replaced with: "It is not acceptable to identify as a pedophile on one's userpage. The very act of identifying as a pedophile is ]." I am pleased to see that the Committee shares my view (I presumed they did to begin with; I did not author the policy and found it far from an ideal approach, but it served to get my point across through a more comprehensible format than WP:AN). ] 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: Actually, I feel tempted to just say that people should know for themselves whether or not they self-identify as pedophiles.... in the same way that cubans are totally free to display a "I hate castro" userbox, germans are free to show an "I support the neo-nazi movement" userbox, israelis are free to display a "all power to hamas" userbox, etc.

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

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

== Embarassing ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== ''Times'' article ==

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

== Essjay ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Parody article re: Essjay/Jimbo ==

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

== Deletion of ] ==

David,

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

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

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

—]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::* I am strongly in favour of quietening this mess down, but deleting the RFC will only anger people more - archive it - whatever - but deletion is unethical and will lead to charges of all manner of unsavoury things. ] 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'd endorse this, it seems odd that only administrators should have access to the discussion now, established non-admins also need to see the debate however unpleasant and painful it may have been. --] | ] 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:My opinion is ]. ] 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::At ]. ] 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

::Of course deletion is done. The lynch mob made it into an "RFC" to give it colour of not being a lynch mob. Then it failed to meet even that standard. Out it goes. If you feel I'm that dead wrong, I invite you to bring an RFC or Arbcom case, i.e. put up or shut up - ] 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::*I don't think it is wise to call many respected editors a lynch mob, all you are doing is irritating a potentially even more unplesant situation. ] 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Although I probably won't go ], I agree - ] 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::People have made reasoned arguments here and you respond with "put up and shut"? Being out of process isn't really an argument for deletion in this case IMHO, there's an overriding public interest defence. But there's really no need for such a combative style, we're here to talk about it, nobody wants anymore of a dust up than has already occured - I'm concerned that you and your actions are inflaming the situation. --] | ] 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

== imposter ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Shelby_Young

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

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

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

] 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelby,

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

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

] 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== WM ==


If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> — Ирука<sup>]</sup> 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't recall my password. I have just updated my WP email to the account I now use - please feel free to contact me that way. Kind regards, Jon, ] 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:05, 8 January 2025


Wikimedia Foundation
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: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Warning messages

Hi David. I don't know who to ask about this, but thought you might know. There are a few sources that have come to RSN that aren't really in need of full deprecation, but that are wasting editors time by being reused and readded. Take for instance WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide, a source that was both UGC and circular but was needing continuous clean up by the editors of the astronomic objects project. Ultimately deprecation was used so a warning appeared if you try to add it, stopping it from being a timesink. But really it didn't need the other aspects of deprecation. I was looking to find out how we got to the current deprecation process, and how editors went about getting it setup, as part of thinking about a slightly different solution for these sources. A different setup with a warning about UGC, self published, circular sources etc, rather than the deprecation one. I'm waffling on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

so the history is the looooong RFC on the Daily Mail, which then opened a process for ruling other sources such obvious wastes of time that they could be similarly classed as almost never to be used - I would go through the deprecation RFCs in rough historical order to get an idea of how it developed as an idea.
UGC is its own class of thing, and you can see the reasoning behind deprecation: that some editors are so persistent in wanting to use known bad sources that you eventually have to make a rule that says "no." Even as all new rules are bad - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, David Gerard, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)