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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 Dec 2008)

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

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you commented about whether the song "Jack" by Machinations was released prior to "Pressure Sway", well you are correct "Jack" was released in February 1983 and "Pressure Sway" was released in June 1983. The album, Esteem, was released in April, 1983. Am going to have a go at trying to expand the article on the band. Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have hit a brick wall on this issue. All that is known for sure is that:

• Be/O2 customers are being proxied through User talk:89.167.221.131.
• TalkTalk customers are being proxied through User talk:62.24.251.240 and User talk:62.24.251.241.
• These IP addresses have been used by the Cleanfeed system in the past.

The IWF has denied that it is involved, but nonetheless the proxying is occurring, and is leading to slow performance and blocking of access for some IP users. Do you have any thoughts on what to do next? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The only thing I can think of is to get a straight answer from those ISPs, and leave if they won't give a satisfactory answer. Testing how a new blanket censorship regime holds up for a major site? - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proxying now seems to be over. I emailed Fred Langford and asked for a comment on why proxying was occurring when the IWF denied that it was involved, but have not received a reply. There is now a strong case for blocking all CleanFeed IP addresses, as they are a nuisance and an insult to the good faith of UK Wikipedians.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've recently made contributions to the Marc Bureau article. Would you like to add your opinion on the article name itself on the talkpage? Thanks. LarRan (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add a disambiguation to the name unless it needs one, mostly - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - someone has nominated the entire article on Riff driven songs for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riff_driven and vote whether to delete or keep the article. Thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Hi there. My apologies, I screwed up. It happens. I've reverted thousands of pieces of vandalism over the past week alone. While logged out, you received a level 1 warning, it's hardly WP:BITEy. It doesn't say "YOU'RE AN EVIL VANDAL", it does say "it appears to introduce incorrect information". Your message on my talk page is a little severe considering it was a level 1 template, but I accept responsibility for my error. I'm attempting to help Wikipedia, not cause issues. --Chasingsol^(talk) 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Yeah, get your mate Jimbo to ban me - you dare to threaten to out me. You are pathetic. Giano (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano. He didn't do any such thing. Either you are paranoid or deliberately assuming bad faith. Either way, please take five minutes, and perhaps "phone a friend" before you react to things.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time in months if not years I've been edit-conflicted on my own talk page. Good Lord - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, it means "to show that this is the actual email sent." I don't have a copy of any such emails myself. You seem to think I'm out to get you; I'm not, I just find your predilection for drama and gratuitous personal attacks wearying and wish you'd stop. By the way, I just read through this and it's excellent stuff (quite sincerely), and more of it I say - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You squirm now - you worm - you and i both know what I mean. Giano (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You publish them, that is what you like - go ahead - prove youreslf to be what I know you to be. Giano (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon get them on site - publish them, I am waiting and so is wikipedia. Giano (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down! Seriously take a step back, this is in your own head. He is not out to get you, he doesn't have your emails so he can't publish them. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has said he wants to publish them with headers - i say fine - if that is how he gets his kicks - well it is his requiem, he must plan it as he sees fit. Giano (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please run your messages past someone who understands computers before posting them - your statements here literally make no sense - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just publish these emails and get on with it. Giano (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon David, get a move on where are these emails? [3] I do hope you did not make that up, to try and discredit me? Giano (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David did not claim to have any e-mails between you and FT2, he said he "understood" they existed and that you would have them. Do you have them Giano?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have some emails all right, but they don't exactly confirm what David understands them to say. Assuming good faith (which is tres hard) one must presume David has been badly misinformed. Of course I would rather the headers were not published on Wiki, but if David feels that is essential then I look forward to seeing them, assuming that is that i wrote them. Giano (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most utterly surreal conversation I have seen on Wikipedia in some time. --TS 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions for you, David, here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Addictive (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cannibaloki 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old articles are not eligible for speedying - I've corrected the error - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Addictive (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cannibaloki 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed speedies don't count as recreations either. You may consider less templating and more communication. This feels like I'm talking to a phone voice menu - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that whole obscene screed is on a template somewhere? Good grief! --TS 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have old articles not been eligible for speedy deletion? I can't see that written down anywhere. And I don't see any mentionin that article of it being mentioned in a specialist encyclopaedia. And, lastly, undeleting an article you created sounds like a very bad idea to me... --Tango (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the references were deleted by someone along the way - readded - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree with Gerard if an article has been around since 2004 a week on AfD won't hurt. Agathoclea (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a decent principle, but it's not actually an accepted rule as far as I know. Abusing admin powers (which undeleting an article you created could easily be interpreted as) to enforce a non-existent (albeit sensible) rule seems like a really bad idea to me. --Tango (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been considered not sensible - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you trying to enforce it? --Tango (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tagging that doesn't match the speedy criteria, then speedying, by a tagger who speaks only in templates and a deleting admin who didn't closely check the tag? (I blame the clueless tagging more than the deleting admin - that's precisely why any admin can undo a speedy. No harm, no foul. There's a ton of crap to clean up, so reversing the errors without rancor keeps the system unclogged with red tape.) - David Gerard (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does match the criteria. Your reason for saying it's notable is its mention in a specialised encyclopaedia, which isn't actually mentioned in the article. The CSD doesn't talk about notability, it talks about assertions of notability - it doesn't matter how notable a subject is, if you don't assert that notability it can be deleted. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would fall under the classification of "contested speedy deletion." It's easy enough to list the article on Articles for deletion for a few days. --TS 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And given that multiple admins removed the speedy tags, I'm inclined to think it prudent as well. I mean, come on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, speedy deletion is about making uncontroversial deletions without unnecessary bureaucracy, this is clearly controversial. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little out of hand. I've asked Jimfbleak to self-revert his last deletion. --TS 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which he has just done. Thanks, jimfbleak. --TS 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Addictive (band), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictive (band). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Yay for templates![reply]

• Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day David - I just wasted some valuable breakfast time trying to catch up on various RfCs and whatnot, and saw your post at FT2's - you mentioned that no-one asked you direct questions, which does sound kinda stupid, so I thought I'd swing by with a small one. You acknowledge that you made a mistake in using 'oversight' when you think deletion was a better option - could I just ask if you, meaning both you as an individual and 'you' the oversight team, have had the chance to review the general use of oversight at that time, and whether or not you discovered any other mistakes - obviously I'm not interested in specifics, but I'm wondering whether there was a general sort of 'bedding in' of the oversight function, where its scope was determined etc. - and if so, what the scale (ie. number) of 'mistakes' might have been. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The non-drama use of such (from over a year ago) is questionable - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well sure, if early problems / mistakes are all fixed up, I guess there's no point - although it's hard to know if anything has changed systemically - has it? I hope it's not particularly dramatic to ask you quietly if there were any other small instances like this, where someone made a mistake and it got fixed - they would after all point to whether or not the system works! (does it, in your view? - seems fine to me, but I can't really see what goes on).

finally, I thought I'd ask what you thought about the 'Review Board' - necessary? useful? - I think it would be good for all existing 'oversighters' and 'checkusers' to share their thoughts. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

still wondering what you think of the review board idea? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David - A friend of mine (Nan Zhang) has a wikipedia entry, seeing as she starred in a television show and modeled for a while. I know her personally (my girlfriend's roommate) and can verify that some of the information on her page is outdated. Also, I have non-copyrighted pictures of her that could be added to the page. Are personal references allowed? Do I need to prove my relationship with her? How can I add information if I can't cite it? Thank you! Iced327 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want my account "Mr Rogers Loves You" back. It was banned unfairly by a power hungry admin and as such I have declared a jihad on Wikipedia until things are restored. I have manipulated your system on at least five occasions to get new accounts and each time I am banned, I can get back in within a few days. You cannot stop me, I will suceed. Now, gimme my account back!--JerryIsThePosterChild (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that's going to work... --Tango (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say - enjoyed the radio interview today. This is one way to raise the profile of WP :-) Agathoclea (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new, and Wikipedia confuses me. I took some very nice pictures of Greg Oden on Saturday, Jan. 24 at the Rose Garden in Portland, Ore. I would like to upload one to the site so that he can have a picture, but it won't let me. Can someone help?

My email is benefit1970@hotmail.com, and my wikipedia user name is benefit1970

Thanks

-Brandon Goldner Opinion Editor, Linn-Benton Commuter

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2 - we're scheduling this for 28 February, pm. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tools:~reedy/awbsnapshots/

I fell out with DreamHost

—Reedy 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the proposed decisions in the current Scientology arb case - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision. Some interesting discussions on the talk page, too. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok if you or I unblocked this IP? It's been blocked for the better part of 2 years. It was part of a list I mentioned here. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal objection. Just keep an eye on it :-) School/college IPs are such endless fun ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, will do. I'm just trying to get rid of this abundance of good faith, you see. =) and I am well-rewarded. . . ;> –xeno (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, my name arbitrarily added after four months! I commend the 2009 Arbcom on its efficacy and transparency - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Do you have pictures of lavvoes that could be added to the article? JIP | Talk 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry! - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Charlie Sheen, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great if you can find a good useable picture of the band. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to comment on the LinkedIn discussion on your blog, but I seem to be running into some hyperactive spam filter (the comment either disappears without any trace or I just get a white screen of death on sending it), so I'll mention here that I created a Social_networking page on Meta to list such groups, and that I asked Jimbo about the supposed spammer (since he is the owner of that group now), and he said that LinkedIn turned the group over to him, so the problem should be solved now. Since Wikipedia Users Group is by far the largest, that one should be the "official" one and the smaller ones should be probably asked to merge into it. --Tgr (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, based on your comments on the Wine bug, I thought you may be interested in the above. It's pretty early, but in active development again. - Taxman ^Talk 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Back on a Linux machine (an Advent 4211 on loan from Secretlondon - my goodness I love this thing, so I may be able to pay attention to the bugs in Wine making the .NET 2.0 support less than fantastic with a view to helping AutoWikiBrowser as well ... but a Python version would be just fine too. Not that I have much semi-auto editing to be getting on with at present - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah AWB currently has no Wine bugs against it, but there are probably at least some already filed that also affect it and could be tagged as such. As for new bugs, they tend to want the bugs filed against specific Wine code portions and I don't know the intricacies of Wine well enough to know how to decide which to file against. I don't actually have much semi-automated editing to do either, though I might find something if I had a tool to use. PyAWB now works, but it's got some ways to go. Anyway, have fun. - Taxman ^Talk 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was impressed by the relevancy of your question in regards to Chris Anderson's mea culpa. There really is no commonly used or accepted method for citing Wikipedia, at least not from the eyes of writers and editors. Would you like to start a working group on this, perhaps on meta? Steven Walling (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you the David Gerard referenced in this bbc article? I cannot find reference to this controversy anywhere I look on WP. Do you in fact have a blog talking about it? Is this some bizarre hoax? I'm baffled (not uncommon ;). Eaglizard (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

n/m about the main stuff, I finally found a single link to the Commons user page. Still interested in that blog, tho. Eaglizard (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed :-) Blog is at http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/ - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a stale discussion on your blog, but I'd be interested in hearing your reply to my comment at http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/04/16/wikipedians-on-linkedin/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo got the "evil" group back. I really should research then update the post - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

07:03, June 19, 2007 David Gerard (talk | contribs | block) blocked 216.176.176.0/21 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Template:blocked proxy: Hosting range with several compromised servers being abused by vandals and trolls) (unblock | change block)

I've got a request from someone on unblock-en-l to unblock their account, only one edit on it, but it brought me to this block. It seems quite old. I did nmap -sL 216.176.176.0/20 and it shows a great many different servers. How about unblocking it and then applying the block to only the affected servers, if any. I also wonder if the technical staff at this hosting company might be cooperative with respect to any open proxies. Fred Talk 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically if it's an old range block then just unblock it and keep an eye on it. The "keep an eye on it" is the bit that's work. I have no preciousness about any range block I've ever made, if someone is willing to keep an eye on them then by all means experimentally unblock them :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Daily WTF logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's been replaced with an identical PNG. That's fine by me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Good on ya for doing it! —Reedy 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think that show pretty much went perfectly as far as presenting what's really happening goes - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just watched you on Newsnight, thus read your user page, and wanted to introduce myself; I suspect that we would agree on most things, and most importantly, we would agree that constructive disagreement is fine. I won't waste your valuable time with waffle, this was just a 'hello'. See you around, I expect. Keep up the good work with the media,  Chzz  ►  16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VPP discussion on right not to have an article about oneself, and the Jim Hawkins article and AfD discussion. Your comments are invited. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angliaman (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to briefly introduce myself as a totally new member here, and before I even attempted to post anything I wanted jut to say a brief hello. It was Fred Bauder who suggested I contact you as the key "communications" person within the UK. I have written for many years on Transdiffusion's web pages, a list of most of my features can be seen at the following link:

http://www.transdiffusion.org/authors/david_brockman.php

I am nobody special, used to work for the BBC and was in volved with many ITV companies, so I was drawn to write for EMC years ago because of my knowlege, often the mundane, of UK television more so in the 60's to 90's, though I did contribute modern material. I am NOT here to promote TBS or there articles, but noted years ago, there were many references to pieces that I had written, been added by other authors. I have ostensibly joined as I get some benefit from wikedpedia, and wanted to give a little back. I saw something on the Yorkshire Television page that I felt I could give added value to, and realised to do so I would need to join and log in. Initially my application was disabled, but Fred sorted it out very quickly.

I am also Executive Producer at Huntingdon Community Radio, www.hcrfm.co.uk which has been awarded an Ofcom licence to broadcast full-time. I get no financial gain from HCRfm, it costs me to be involved. I asked Fred about whetner it would be appropriate to alter/change the HCR info, to put accurateand relevant information on the page so that people googling, get the latest, and not whatever irrelavant and outdated material is on the page. Fred said the conflicts of interests means that probably not advisable to alter anything, or if one did so, there might be comments etc. So I thought well I am new here, not known, don't rock any boats, make small ammendments, get known a little for being accurate, reliable, responsible, and helpful in other broadcasting related areas first.

May be later, if I get to know any trusted editors/writers, they my be best served adding/ammending anything, based on help from me behind the scenes. Any information would have been accurate and be in the public domain elsewhere. HCR is doing fine with or without Wikedpedia, my only concern was not to promote me or make any gain, it was purely to ensure what was there, was the latest and accurate, so that people, even those abroad, ex Huntingdion, know what is going on.

Finally I was born and brought up in Walthamstow E17 not far from Blackhore Road tube, so apart from sharing first name, we both have a connection with Walthamstowe. All I want to do is help improve information and add things in small ways. Fred said you did not know me, I am not sure why he would have thought you would. I just get on with my writing quietly, and answer requests from universities, members of the public, or whoever gets in touch with me.

Kindest Regards, if you want to know any more, please ask, but this was an introduction, before I do any edfits of any kind, as a matter of courtesy to say hello. I will learn about how the site operates, and act within the rules etc, and perhaps over a period of time, - respect tc has to be earned, people in the community will gradually see, I do my best, and am factual, reliable, honest, willing to help and care about the community and others in it.

Angliaman (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Dickey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Lara 20:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should drop in there some time. –Moondyne 05:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being considered for deletion along the grounds of notability and issues with reference materials, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Love_Pump#Love_Pump . The article uses a reference to your magazine 'Party Fears' in an attempt to provide a verifiable historiography. Band members are contributing to the article (including Trevor Hilton, who I believe you know) and we would appreciate your input into supporting the article if you feel it deserves it - there is virtually no historical record of this period of Perth popular music, as it predates the internet and does not feature on the radar of the predominantly Eastern States commentators. Thanks. Visualising (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if your interested in revisiting red link hate but recently I brought up the idea of nixing red link opposes at FLC, based on your having done so with FAC a couple years back. Didn't go quite as smoothly. In fact, I opened a RfC and it was shut down by a handful of FLC regulars in about a week, prematurely in my opinion. The debate and RfC are located at WT:FL? (last section of the RfC covers the shut down request) and the ANI to close/reopen it is here. I'm happy to walk away as I've said my bit but I hate to see an RfC cut down in its prime. Even if you're not interested in weighing in, can you tell me, how did you make it look so easy? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I heard everything first from Uncyclopedia? --TS 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ianmcf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Giveit.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most pleased to continue to supply some people with entertainment - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctorfluffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Concerning Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#User:Doctorfluffy, please note that the editor in question has been blocked for 55 hours for edit-warring and when his unblock request was denied, he courtly replied to the admin with, "I have no problem editing anonymously for 2 days." A second admin replied with, "Please don't; I'd rather not have to extend this block indefinitely. Block evasion tends to be dealt with harshly here. Anyway -- you going to stop edit warring? Just commit to not doing it; it's not a restriction other than one we all live with. Then the unblock is easy." And once again, Doctorfluffy said, "I don't really care if I am unblocked or not....and there is no particular reason those edits need to be associated with this account." Not only is the user dismissing/ignoring the advice of multiple admins, he is blatantly admitting a willingness to evade the block, which seems to run in the face of the unblock agreement. Anyway, I thought this should be brought to your attention. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it mentions you, it's polite to give you a heads-up, eh? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that anyone participating in that thread has way more interest in drama than writing an encyclopedia. I've started adding bits of video, it's fun! - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good point. I am now bowing out of the thread. Especially as I haven't really contributed to Wikipedia in ages. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was having lunch in Russell Square and got out the camera that had arrived the previous evening, as you do. I took a photo of the fountain and realised it was not interesting the way watching the fountain was. Et viola, eight seconds of video. The point of a fountain being the movement. I put it into the page and was shocked how effective it was having the video right there in the encyclopedia article. It really was like a book come to life. So if you're at a loss, go around making short videos of things that are interesting because they're moving - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if only I had a working camera, eh? :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean voilà, or are making some kind of in-joke? –xeno^talk 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke on the common misspelling in English of "voilà" as "viola", not an in-joke as such :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it even more amusing when it's mispelled "wolla!" or similar. –xeno^talk 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have got into trouble with the Copyvio enforcers for linking to your blog post, as apparently they fear your blog violates copyright and is thus to be designated a badsite or something. See here and here and elsewhere. I'm going to let the matter drop, but I thought I should let you know. I'm bemused that fellow wikipedians who think that your blog contains a copyvio didn't think to bring that concern to your attention in the first instance. Anyway, I leave the matter with you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just take it as a reliable method of drama-queen detection and not worry further, myself - there are any number of better things to think about (and I'd better get producing, if I'm going to say that so much). I posted the email because it was a direct threat, and the thing to do with those is to publicise them widely immediately. (ArbCom's original issue appears to have been my tweet as quoted within the blog post.) @jeamland himself got a similar threat - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our conclusions match. I simply thought that since the discussion centred round you, you should at least be informed. Unless provoked, this will be my last post on the issue. My foolishness was to rise to the bait.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me :-) I did note expressly that I posted the email because it was a threat from someone with a bad history of such, and that in such circumstances fair use could indeed be up to 100% quotation of the copied material, in the public interest; and that, in case there was any doubt about it, I was most expressly claiming such, and would defend on such a basis if the original author of the email were to claim copyright violation (which he hasn't) - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, you mention returning to content work. Here's something of long range importance to WMF that you'd be well poised to help, if it interests you. Rather than repeat the basics, the idea is here.[4] Alison and Michael Peel are already on board for the pilot project; she'd be best for guidance regarding content priorities (I really don't know much Irish history). But if it helps for a start, William Butler Yeats's work is due to enter public domain next month.

And David, that bit above is somewhere between snark and personal attack. By the time you read this you'll probably have had a night's rest. Would you consider a good faith refactor? Durova³⁷¹ 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please retract your spurious claim of copyright violation - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful collaboration is one of the pillars of the project. Disagreement over a policy interpretation is not a license to insult an editor. In this instance the consensus leans toward agreement with me. I have neither insulted you nor accused you of impropriety: the law that applies to your blog is different from the case law and policy at this US-based site. If you would like to collaborate on the proposed project please indicate an interest. And again, please extend a basic courtesy even when we sometimes disagree. Durova³⁷¹ 16:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer this question either here or there? Cla68 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]