User talk:David Gerard/archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.jpg 2 West Australian Music Industry Awards 3 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 4 RFAR discussion 5 IRC arbitration 6 Courtesy note 7 Stephen Fry 8 London Meetup 9 McIntosh 10 Centralized TV Episode Discussion 11 I liked it so much I thought I would share it 12 Knol 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Mission-earth-1-the-invaders-plan.jpg 14 Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science 15 Security Check Children 16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png 17 Your comments on AfDs 18 User:204.185.159.249 19 AN/I discussion 20 My Rfa 21 Sanity check 22 /i/ boroud yur werdz 23 Apology to Cirt 24 Future of WP:WEA page 25 8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED! 26 Natalee Holloway 27 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC 28 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spinal Tap logo.jpg 29 MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Rouge admin 30 You? 31 Speedy deletion of Template:Bias warning 32 Not shocked 33 Link to your post 34 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GodLove.jpg 35 AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook 36 PiperDown 37 Scientology 38 NYRB 39 Mailing list thread - comment 40 Matt Boyd AFD 41 Incivility and assumption of bad faith 42 March 2008 43 Arb Com comment at AFDs 44 SU WikiProject 45 David Alexander (author) 46 AFDs: Max Pawlus, Matthew Kozioł 47 AfD comments 48 Your AfD comments 49 Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg 50 Unspecified source for Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png 51 Well said 52 FYI, re User:Samiharris sock tagging 53 Request for clarification 54 FYI 55 Image:Replace this image female.svg 56 Image:Evgenia eremina-001.jpg 57 Peter James Knight image request 58 Happy First Day of Spring! 59 Not to be picky but 60 Ray Stevens 61 NFL infobox changes 62 AWB question 63 Fair use rationale for Image:Anomalist1.png 64 Indonesian Project 65 Grant Wiley 66 g'day david...... 67 No free image 68 Edits to Football biographies 69 What to do about placeholder images 70 AWB, requests for images and so on... 71 Peter James Knight image request again 72 FYI 73 Jon Sholle image 74 maybe a list of corrections between stable vetted versions of articles 75 want a free picture?

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Australian Music Industry Awards

I would have added the info for the 1990, 1991 & 1992 awards but I haven't found a complete listing of who won which award - if you have any info on more than just who won the golden WAMi in 1991 ;) then let me know.Dan arndt (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Best place to ask would be WAM. Ask for press clippings, they'll have 'em. (I left my archive in Perth and it's jussssst dusssssst ... unless there's a paper or two in a box on a shelf in the front room.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA, and the pithy "not insane" comment.  ;) The RfA was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done! - David Gerard (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR discussion

Hi David, there's a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#The_FoF_regarding_David_Gerard that you might like to read. Kosebamse (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC arbitration

Hi. Could you please advise whether you anticipate posting any statement or evidence in the IRC arbitration case soon? As you may have seen, I am abstaining from voting on any findings regarding you pending an opportunity to review your comments, but cannot continue to do so indefinitely. Thanks for your anticipated response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emailed. Public note here. I have a new appreciation of the difficulty people brought before the AC have in fitting writing up a good statement between real life - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure if you noticed my mention of an edit summary of yours on the talk page of the proposed decision, but do you have time to discuss the edit summary you made here back in June last year? "reverting page to a version that doesn't suck, as 0wnz0r of this here project page." I realise that sarcasm doesn't come across well in printed media, so I wanted to ask if you were being sarcastic here or serious about owning the page (I think that leetspeak is sometimes used like this in a sarcastic manner)? I was thinking of noting this on the evidence page, but wanted to ask you about it first. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Original statement answered this already - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that. Thanks. This raises two further questions in my mind: (1) Would you be happy for the page to be in the Help: namespace? (2) Why rely on people to read edit summaries instead of making the "owner" point clear on the page itself? I appreciate you may be busy, and have already e-mailed the arbcom, but I'm hoping something useful comes out of all this. Possibly the arbcom decision will address such points, but possibly they won't. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was created to avoid ambiguity and complaints from the very people who trolled it leading to this case, so I can't say I care where it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I can't say I agree about calling it trolling. I accept Bishonen's statement that it was a genuine emotional response from Giano and Geogre, followed by FUBAR on all sides. But thanks for taking the time to talk. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy note

FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Fry

Regarding your recent edit to Stephen Fry. The placeholder image was originally in use in the infobox, but a consensus was reached that it should not be used. Have a look at the discussion on the talk page for details. For what it's worth, I think the article looks better WITH the placeholder, but we have to bow to consensus when it is reached! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A "three no, one yes" straw poll is now binding consensus? You know, I was joking when I said "'Consensus' means a 7:3 vote on an obscure talk page" - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole placeholder image thing is a bit over the top. I have never seen a situation where these result in an image being uploaded, and they are unsightly. In my opinion, your resources could be spent on more meaningful contributions to the project instead of flooding it with unnecessary images. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I have seen many when they have resulted in a new free image being uploaded. I wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. In the case of Fry, I'm now looking around for a suitable freely-licensed image ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the person yourself? More often than not they are more than willing to do so and it saves us from being subjected to this crap. I think the absence of any image at all is more than enough to tell people that an image is needed. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. They do make Wikipedia look unfinished, but that would be because it is. (At least it's better than the previous version of the placeholder.) We are in fact working on precisely that: pointing out that if you want an image that's not horrible, then properly releasing a good promo under a proper free licence will get you and us what we want. See the newly-added Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. Once that mechanism's working smoothly, we'll be doing some active promotion of this channel. We've actually put some thought into this matter. In the meantime, placeholder images do in fact gain us photos we wouldn't have otherwise, so are (except in the case of current teen idols, where they attract nothing but copyvios) in fact better than no image - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Stephen Fry article has been plagued with copyvios for a while now, which is why I put the placeholder there in the first place. We've had everything from Blackadder screenshots to QI DVD covers, with no reasonable images we can use at all. Just as an aside - I prefer articles to have the placeholder, I'm just going along with what the majority appear to want! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Fry is apparently quite the fan of Wikipedia, so hopefully just contacting him or his agent or whatever may well work! - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please uncheck whatever AWB option converts <references /> to {{reflist}}.[1] Per {{reflist}}, "there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references". Gimmetrow 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, OK, sorry about that - I saw that in the default AWB changes and was wondering myself if that one was a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday, 12 January 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fear I'm unlikely to make it this time. Mind you, what we need to do is set one up at the Pembury. Not in the city, but certainly enough Wikipedians as regulars ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David.

As you know, it's turned out that London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 (April 13th) is going to be in Holborn again. Boring I know. The Pembury is undoubtedly a nicer pub, but it seemed like we were unlikely to get enough interest unless we make it very easy to get to. At least we're not arranging it at Montagu Pyke :-)

Hope you decide to come along anyway ...and get the other usual suspects along too!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McIntosh

• Image:McIntosh.jpg
• CC-BY McIntosh apple, would need the background photoshopped away

HTH, Lupo 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I liked it so much I thought I would share it

Wikipedia:Don't just ignore the process WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Already at Uncyclopedia:Process is important, complete with "Satan hates his job too" picture ;-) Uncyc is CC-by-nc-sa, but I wrote it and GFDL is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knol

Thanks for your contributions to the knol article. You went through the article and capitalized the word "knol" whenever it was a proper noun. We had a discussion about capitalization of the term in the talk page. I'm not going to undo your changes but please, read the discussion and I leave it to you to undo your changes or keep them and explain in the talk page. Thanks! DuckeJ (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mission-earth-1-the-invaders-plan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mission-earth-1-the-invaders-plan.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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Security Check Children

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Security Check Children, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Security Check Children. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Solaris8-cde.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on AfDs

Can you please be more polite? Can you please stick to commenting on whether or not coverage in secondary sources seems to show notability in these topics, as opposed to commenting personally on me? Please? Cirt (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to put it than "you are woefully ignorant of the subject area you are mass-nominating for deletion", because you are. I'm sure you don't like hearing it, and I have no question of you doing this in good faith - but that doesn't mean you have good judgement, as I fear you are conclusively demonstrating you do not. Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on commenting on me personally in every single AfD? Why can't we have a discussion based on the notability of the articles? Please, David Gerard, I would have expected more from you, this is really not appreciated. Please. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Er ... that would be because you are the person who is in fact doing the mass-nominating. As such, your subject area ignorance is in fact directly relevant. The obvious solution is not to mass-nominate articles for deletion in an area you are clearly ignorant of. "Notability" is a guideline at best, and one which is hotly questioned because of its overuse by the sincere but ignorant in mass nomination of articles in subject areas they have no knowledge of. The "reliable sourcing" guidelines are guidelines at best also, and need a lot of work per subject area. You do realise that for Scientology there are plenty of cases where Usenet articles are suitable sources, because that's where the history of Scientology 1995-2000 actually happened? You didn't know that? This is what I mean when I speak of the hazards of mass nomination in a subject area you are ignorant of - you can end up looking exceedingly foolish, and can expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have AfD discussions based on the subject matter and whether or not there is enough coverage in secondary sources to warrant notability? Can we please not try to shift the focus of the debate to parsing my level of expertise? Cirt (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Cirt (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

And you nominated "Tone scale" for deletion rather than using your alleged knowledge to fix it? Surely the latter would serve the reader better.

I will be working on the articles, and have asked others to help (and, FWIW, specifically asked them not to comment on the AFD unless they're a regular Wikipedia editor already, as it's not a poll - that the very best thing they could do would be to work on the articles). However, ignorant mass nomination for deletion is a problem, one that seriously needs attention, and one that this is merely the latest example of - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

Please see the recent AfD I nominated for Fear (novel). A user from the AfD showed me that there was enough coverage in independent sources, per WP:NOTE, and I voluntarily withdrew my own AfD. That's all I want - a discussion based on whether or not there is independent coverage of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you can show me politely by commenting about the articles and not about me, that any of these articles have significant coverage in independent sources as per WP:NOTE - I will voluntarily withdraw any of these AFDs. I do wish you would be more polite and AGF though. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Look, I'm sorry things recently seem to be getting heated relatively quickly. I apologize if it came across that I was mass deleting things I was ignorant of, but that's not the case. I just don't want to assess notability based on my own personal opinion, but rather based on whether or not there is coverage in independent sources, enough to have an article that is based on these sources, and not based on WP:OR, or on primary sources written by Hubbard/Scientology, which then opens up the tendency for WP:OR. So far you haven't really given much assertion or evidence of coverage in independent sources about any of these subjects - but just keep on commenting again and again about me. I'll do my best to try not to get offended that you are doing this and I will try to assume good faith that you mean well in your comments. Again, if you just show a couple examples of some coverage/discussion in independent sources that are not primary sources - I will voluntarily withdraw that AfD. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I also come to realize that I should not have sent these all to AfD at the same time, but one at a time, and for that I apologize. I will not do something like that again. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:204.185.159.249

I saw that this IP address was indef blocked by you back in 2005 beccause it was believed to be an open proxy. I came across it while doing some user talk shared ip tagging (at User talk:204.185.159.249). I don't think that it's likely to be an open proxy or a zombie computer since the address is registered to an educational institution, so I was wondering if you would object to my unblocking the IP address? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I discussion

Hi David. There's a discussion ongoing at AN/I regarding your block of User:Piperdown as a sock of WordBomb. Just to let you know, and that we would appreciate your weighing in their with your comments as to the block. Apparently, Piperdown has been blocked for some time but requested unblock review just today so User:Cla68 has requested community discussion - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion is here [3]. Thincat (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Duh - sorry, my bad. At least I had the link right :) - Alison ^❤ 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

David, that discussion has really heated up in the last day. As soon as you're online it would be very helpful if you weighed in. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity check

Hi, would you mind having a look at this diagram and telling me if it's more or less accurate?

Are oversight & CU basically synonymous with ArbCom + ex-ArbCom?

And if you know of any method at all to measure anon editors, that would be cool too.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /i/ boroud yur werdz

User talk:Jimbo#WikiNews is a crack whore. I'm totally doing science with my . . . well, you know. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• David Gerard (talk · contribs), perhaps now would be a good time for you to provide feedback on my actions, as well as my apology to you regarding my admitting I was sorry for nominating multiple AfDs at once? Cirt (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*blush* Yes. I shall tonight. Sorry for the delay - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology to Cirt

I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on several AFDs last week. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better.

When I get a spare bl**dy second (stupidly busy at work and home), I look forward to working with Cirt on our Scientology articles :-) There's quite a lot to be done ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If that's how you feel, you may wish to comment at User_talk:Jimbo#WikiNews_is_a_crack_.22harlot.22_.28someone_didn.27t_like_my_term.29, and/or at Wikipedia:Ani#JustAHulk_flaming_on_Jimbo.27s_talkpage.. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*boggle* You know, Jimbo's talk page really is the greatest crank magnet on the whole wiki. I'll try to think of something worth saying there ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future of WP:WEA page

Hi there. Following some discussion on the talk page of the Proposed decision page of the IRC Arbitration case, I was wondering what your views were on the future of WP:WEA after the case closes? I don't know if you are aware that there was a second MfD on the page, which was withdrawn by the nominator as the arbitration case was in progress? Anyway, the first MfD is here, and the second one is here. Since the IRC case has included some pretty clear signals that the page has a specific function and is owned by you, I thought it would be best to get your views on how to handle any future deletion nominations. Would you view those nominations as valid? Could the function of the page be fulfilled another way or in a different location? Would you consider merging the content back to the main WP:IRC page? Would you consider moving the WP:WEA page to your userspace (or meta)? I guess the questions really boil down to whether the discussions that originally led to the formation of WP:WEA are still valid, and if so, whether those discussions over-ride community processes such as MfD? It might seem like a difficult question to answer (or maybe it is simple), but one of the reasons I'm asking is that if the arbitration case closes without any resolution of this issue, there may be more drama. It is possible that a pre-emptive action by you could avoid future drama, which would be good news all round, really. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really owned by the arbcom, looks like, after Jimbo indicated that yes, the arbcom really does have the power to act on bad things happening there. I haven't been on IRC in months and don't anticipate being there again soon, so I should really pull back from overinvolvement. I'm not wedded to the page's existence myself. It's All A Tricky One. - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the page is now listed for deletion (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#WEA_MfD). Your input would be appreciated. Kosebamse (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies David, I stopped by to let you know - I'd assumed you'd seen the post on the arb case proposed decision talk, or village pump. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED!

Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalee Holloway

Can you please comment on what your post of May 14th, 2007 on that talk page specifically requested of editors? I would like to remove category Living persons, per the category disappeared persons page, with the understanding that BLP concerns should still be addressed. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He may want to remove the BLP cat but I can't see him getting any consensus to do so as there is still no evidence she is dead. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spinal Tap logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spinal Tap logo.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who knows what this week's hoop to jump through for fair use is, please feel free to put it on the image page - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Rouge admin

Wikipedia:Rouge admin, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge admin (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Rouge admin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alexfusco⁵ 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You?

David, You created Wikipedia:Rouge admin? Wow, I'll try to treat you with a bit more respect. Meanwhile we are just coming on wiki with the 2008 Wikipedia DVD (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection/additions and updates for changes versus this year so far, so if you want to influence how it goes now is a good time. If you can help encourage people to help that's good. We are trying to push some of the volunteers onto WP to work here. --BozMo talk 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember creating it! I'll let the world know :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Bias warning

A tag has been placed on Template:Bias warning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I created it specifically to salt it, I think I'm just fine with that - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not shocked

Just very surprised, and glad that nobody was looking over my shoulder. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 :-D Now you have to write Labium (insect)! - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I have to do is rewrite insect mouthparts-- it's rather impossible to talk about the, er, parts in isolation, especially with stag beetles on one end of the spectrum and butterplies on the other. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to your post

FYI, I have linked to your post regarding the issue of the word "vanity" in AfD debates. See Wikipedia:AN/I#216.231.41.66_Threatening_to_Sue_Wikipedia_over_VfD and Wikipedia:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Loony:_a_novella_of_epic_proportions. Tyrenius (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GodLove.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GodLove.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 may 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 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scientology Handbook, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scientology Handbook. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PiperDown

Hello. There's been a recent thread at WP:AN that resulted in the unblock of User:Piperdown, a user that you indefinitely blocked. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

I heard you used to have an interest in scientology. There's an article called Project Chanology about world events you might want to check out. It's possible you may even be involved in it and if so, for curiousity's sake, have you done any of the worldwide protests against scientology that members of Project Chanology have done? You're rather famous on the english wikipedia so it would be cool if you did. 66.53.212.30 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYRB

Thanks for your kind words. Regards,--Wageless (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mailing list thread - comment

I was reading the mailing list archives, and noticed among other comments in that thread, the following: "That Wikimedia takes a proactive approach to ferreting out possible copyright violations - and BetacommandBot is a perfect example of how we take proactive care with this stuff" - BetacommandBot is an interesting case, in that it technically doesn't look for copyright violations (it actually looks for non-free images that fail to mention somewhere on the image page the article they are being used in). That many of those images are in fact lacking non-free use rationales, or lack any sort of claim of fair use, is a fortuitous overlap. The same number of possible copyright violations might be detected if someone got a bot to randomly tag images for people to check! And the definition of a "copyright violation" is interesting as well. I think it is best to reserve that term for copyrighted images that people upload under a GFDL tag, or fail to provide a source, or otherwise completely deny or fail to reveal the actual copyright status. Fair use is not in itself a copyright violation. Though any non-free use rationale on Wikipedia can indeed be contested, that doesn't make it a copyright violation.

The other main thrust of that thread, people uploading their own images under fair use, is just rehashing old arguments. It is clear (though I made this mistake myself at one point) that the upload screen quite correctly insists that if you are the author of the text or image, you must release it under a free license (or into the public domain). The point that people seem to be missing (though I haven't read the whole thread) is that someone else can upload the image for you and claim fair use, but, and this is the crucial point, you can only do this under Wikipedia's EDP (WP:NFCC) if the image has previously been published. That (and the namespace restriction) immediately eliminates quite a lot of the self-made images that people want to upload but don't want to release under a free license. It's ironic really, though - people don't want to freely release the pic of themselves that they put on their user page, because they don't want the image to end up on Commons and have some random person use it to illustrate an article in the Japanese (say) Wikipedia, or have some random person use it for whatever reason, but then are told that they can instead link externally to a geocities (say) webpage where they can put the picture. From where, of course, anyone can download the picture and do exactly the same things (well, not putting it on Commons, but you know what I mean). It just seems silly to freely release a picture that you created for a specific purpose of putting on your user page, and which isn't part of the content of the encyclopedia.

Does Commons have a way of dealing with such non-encyclopedic images, or does it try and tag them as "picture of Caucasian male in early 20s" and "Japanese girl in late 40s", and so on, and hope that someone will find a use for such pictures? Otherwise, the pictures are being used in the sense of being a free webhost. Ditto the "meetup" pictures. See WP:MEETUP, though I suppose those could be useful for a future "history of Wikimedia meetups" free-content publication. No encyclopedia content, but then Commons serves more projects than just the Wikipedias. It would be nice, though, to be able to document Wikipedia history in a way that isn't susceptible to being rewritten and redistributed. Sure, the wiki process is good for creating the meta-history books, but after such documents have been finished, there should be a way to deposit a permanent record, and I'm not sure the GFDL doesn't work against the process of archiving permanent records. I guess what I am saying is that stuff inside the archives can be GFDL (and reused), but the overall archive and how it is arranged should be more restricted. Does that make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Boyd AFD

I've replied to your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler). I don't know quite for sure what you believe I misinterpreted along the way. Would you mind following up on the reply I left there to yours? Thanks, Metros (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility and assumption of bad faith

Where did this come from? Feel free to disagree with me on the merits of the article, and yes, I agree, Edison makes an excellent case for the article to be kept. But please assume good faith on my part. What makes you think that I wouldn't do any research before nominating? Apparently Edison has found what I haven't been able to find. Kudos to him. But that certainly doesn't warrant your incivility and gross assumption of bad faith. This is completely uncalled for. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no question of your good faith. I do strongly question your judgement, and would suggest a few weeks of nothing but article writing before wasting AFD time further - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to raise your recent comments on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:David Gerard. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as your comment "I ... would suggest a few weeks of nothing but article writing before wasting AFD time further" is concerned, feel free to go through my contributions and User:Aecis/Hall of Fame. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your confusion of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Per comments left at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:David Gerard, refrain from incivil comments that you have left at numerous AfD's. They are not constructive and may fringe upon a personal attack. As an editor who has been here since 2004, you should really know better than to stoop down to such petty jabs. seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean "assume commonsense". Indeed the cockup theory is often the only civil assumption available to explain an action. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb Com comment at AFDs

Please assume good faith rather than suggesting that every nomination by a particular person should be severely scrutinized for creating a nomination about fictional articles. It is entirely possible that not every single editor of Wikipedia is aware of every single arbitration case that is currently pending. Metros (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it with these people who can't tell calling judgement poor from assumption of bad faith? Did you read the above sections before leaving what appears to be a hit'n'run comment? - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if a person has no basis on which to judge, how can you call their judgment poor? If a person is totally unaware of the arbitration case, they don't have a basis to judge on. Metros (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest they learn something about a highly contentious area before considering they have the judgement required to nominate topics within it for deletion. Surely asking for people to know what they're doing isn't asking too much? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To a casual Wikipedian editor, there's no reason for that person to even realize such meta issues exist. How are they to even know it's a highly contentious area? I don't see a reason to question that person's judgment just because they are not a highly-involved editor who sees "the other side" of Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly boggled that you consider deletion nominations suitable material for a casual editor. AFD's noted (press-noted!) hostility to commenters with a low edit count suggests you're dead wrong on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

David, if you carefully read the injunction it says "any currently existing article", and the Hooves and Harlots episode was created later, so the injunction doesn't apply. Addhoc (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Alexander (author)

Thank you for commenting on the article for deletion but in the future please refrain from making comments about the nominator and stick to the subject of the AFD and why it should be kept. I found it very uncivil that most of your comment was about my lack of judgment than as to why the article should be kept. --Ozgod (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When we're talking about something as important as the matter of deleting a topic entirely from Wikipedia, the judgement of the nominator - and whether they're wasting precious time on AFD - is a highly relevant matter. I really don't see how you can claim it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your fourth comment regarding this matter. Perhaps you should be changing your behaviour in accordance to other user's comments. seicer | talk | contribs 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As the response to BetacommandBot on fair-use abuse demonstrates, that counts for very little. Perhaps you could answer the question I asked elsewhere. rather than attempting to dodge it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred you left a message on my talk page about how you feel about my nomination of the article rather than your comment on the AFD being about how you feel about my lack of judgment rather than why the article should be kept. The whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Wikipedia; not an area to air your opinions about other editors. --Ozgod (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as the recent media attention to AFD demonstrates, poor judgement on the part of nominators and participants is precisely the actual problem. Therefore, claiming that people are not allowed to name the actual problem actively hampers dealing with it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is a flaw with the AFD process and how AFD nominations by all mean air your concerns on the talk page. Again, an AFD is about articles for deletion which is a discussion about the article in question. If you'd like, feel free to make a request to create ENAFD - Editors Nominating Articles For Deletion - to better facilitate you in expressing your concerns and opinions. As you feel that editors are cluttering AFD with "silly" nominations you too are cluttering the process by airing your opinions at an inappropriate time and venue. --Ozgod (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to ignore the issue by trying to steer it somewhere you can ignore it. I suggest this is very much not the best move for the encyclopedia, even though it would make you personally feel more comfortable - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs: Max Pawlus, Matthew Kozioł

Hi, could you explain your votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Pawlus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł? Thank you. Visor (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to WP:CSB should detail what systemic bias means. In this case, assuming that Polish subjects are covered online to the same degree as English-language subjects - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can see deleted revs, from which it is not hard to figure out that Kozioł is a hoax. Pawlus? Google.pl doesn't do so well. There's no Polish-specific news search I'm aware of, so I tried Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta: nada. Paint me surprised that one of the 4 ghits is some splod on an American Friends-United style site. It's one thing to argue against the notability guideline fetish and general laziness of nominators, quite another when you want to ignore WP:V and include what are very probably hoaxes. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and shall take more care in future - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD comments

I've been closing off a few AfDs, mainly those now clean of the odd injunction from the committee on Episodes and Characters. I'm not sure your comments are entirely fair to all the nominators you have pointed them at, as I don't suppose most people think to check for an arbcom injunction (of possibly the most sweeping scope ever) before nominating something for AfD. It seems a little unfair to suggest banning people from AfD for what might not even really qualify as a mistake (ignorance being a reasonable defence in this case). In any case, the injunction is dispensed with now, so you're done, I hope. Incidentally, if media attention has you jittery, then I'd think that the tone of your comments would be very likely indeed to attract salacious journalistic attention more than the nomination itself. Splash - tk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your AfD comments

Dear David Gerrard, when you wrote "jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator [etc...]" [4] of Coredesat's actions, I'm not sure you were aware that the article was 1) greatly improved since it had been nominated 2) speedily deleted as an unreferenced stub that made no claims of notability 3) send to AfD by the admin who undeleted it. I really find it hard to fault Coredesat for 1) undeleting the article and 2) sending an newly undeleted and unreferenced stub to AfD. Coredesat's actions seem hardly unreasonable and clearly done in the best of intentions, and I don't understand why you need to unload such contempt on him. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: ChrisO (talk · contribs) took care of this. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Foobaz (talk · contribs) added a fair use rationale for this one. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well said

I don't like these torch-and-pitchfork affairs either [5]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Tony, you had no problem with community action earlier in the ArbCom case. David, I really think you ought to retract your last statement. They have a term for those who undo others administrator actions without consensus. It's called wheel-warring. It's something you can lose your mop for, and I don't think anyone wants that. The vast majority of the people who have contributed on AN have stated flat out that a multiple-time caught sockpuppet master deserves a block or a ban. As stated previously, the ArbCom has allowed the community to extend sanctions that they considered to not be strong enough. We have the primary exhibit in that, not two weeks old, in Archtransit's case. If you want to oppose, fine, whatever. But I strongly urge you to take back your threat to wheel-war. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will accept community consensus, holding my nose if necessary. If there is one admin prepared to unblock then the requisite level of consensus does not exist. Moreover, as I remarked earlier, there is surprisingly strong opposition to the proposal. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Tony, Consensus does not mean unanimity, no matter how much you want to reframe the debate. And be totally honest, the only thing you're surprised about is that it's gotten this far without someone closing the debate and stating "We know better then you". SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the banning policy again. It's quite explicit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or read WP:WHEELWAR One shouldn't undo another admin's actions without consensus. Looks like when it supports you, consensus is "50% + me" and when it doesn't it is "It has to be unanimous" SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the banning policy. It's all explained in there. Accusing somebody of wheel warring for carrying out a policy action is not constructive. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David, I have enormous respect for you. Yet I really hope you soften your statement about unblocking. There's an unresolved tension between the definition of a community ban and the definition of a wheel war and no one wants to see another arbitration case follow on the heels of this. Whether or not that outcome would actually happen, your post does raise worries that it could. I hope Wikipedians on both sides of the fence can set aside our individual differences and resolve this situation harmoniously. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An acrimonous debate over three sections of WP:AN is in no way a "consensus" on a community ban; any such block would be entirely against blocking policy. And I think someone trying to raise a lynch mob in anticipation of an arbcom decision not going their way is a matter of grave concern - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I shared your concerns about process when this idea was first floated at the proposed decision talk page and was surprised to see the only arbitrators who responded at that time cite Archtransit and state that they would not object to a community ban proposal. Regarding the lynch mob characterization (an inflammatory phrase that would be better to jettison if possible), I objected to Jehochman's first move for a community ban discussion because Mantanmoreland deserved a fair chance to present his side of events. Many of the people who now support a siteban were willing to extend good faith to Mantanmoreland but sorely disappointed by a defense that was largely predicated upon a partisan stand in in an offsite dispute, and that doubted both the Committee's and the community's fitness to question his actions. We can agree to disagree about some of these points, I hope. More than anything else, I'd like to see a sober and rational discussion that leads to a firm consensus. Durova^Charge! 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David, can I ask if your stance is in any way related to discussion you may have seen on the arbitration-l mailing list? Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David, why haven't you apologized or taken accountability for wrongfully blocking an entire town in Utah and Piperdown, who isn't WordBomb or an employee of Overstock.com? Cla68 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, re User:Samiharris sock tagging

On WP:AN. Lawrence § t/e 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

User_talk:KellyAna#Drake_Hogestyn_article Regards TINYMARK 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Replace this image female.svg

Just in case you haven't noticed, Image:Replace this image female.svg is up for deletion (nomination has been done on March 12, but without tagging the image page; I complete the nom today). Given the large number of pages where this image is used, I believe some discussion should take place before deleting. Tizio 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evgenia eremina-001.jpg

Well, I believe somebody replaced the Image:Evgenia eremina lingerie.jpg for a blatant copyright violation, with an exact copy of the same image under a different name. The person under the Evgenia Eremina account who uploaded the picture is a fan of the model and also runs a fan site that he passes off to be "official". However, he mostly doesn't own that image, which belongs to either belongs to the photographer or the model. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Zapped again, blocked for a week, here's to the AFD passing - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter James Knight image request

Peter James Knight is in jail for murder. Do you think it is possible for someone to create a freely licensed photo of him as you've requested? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Well, I wouldn't expect it to be easy ... probably easier than getting one of J. D. Salinger! - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

 :-D Though it's a couple of days to the equinox ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not to be picky but

Not to be picky... but your AWB assisted edit to add the "replace this image" pic into the musician infoboxes... is placing the field above the name field in the infobox when it finishes. Which is fine because the Img field and the name field (and any other field for that matter) still function no matter what order they are in. But my inner an*l perfectionist says the field order should be maintained... fairly close... to the template guideline and example. Mainly because only about 10% of the editors on Wiki actually know how to format the box properly in the first place.... and if the box is altered too much compared to the template example it introduces that chance happening that a newbie/novice will end up breaking the box when they try to edit it. Just hought you'd like to know.(and maybe you don't care) But my inner perfectionist is now appeased that I have whined about it and so now I can go feed it some tea and a scone to calm it down. Have a nice day. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As you note, it does work precisely the same, but I can appreciate the an*lity irritation factor :-) You would probably believe the remarkable regular expressions I've concocted to do this stuff. Evil, evil. I'll have to see if I can work out something to preserve where Name = goes ... though not straight away.

By the way, I'm hoping for more than a few free content images from putting placeholders on the musician pages - we've got a new photo submission email address where artists and their agents can send photos they're releasing under a proper free licence and Commons users on OTRS will put the pic on the servers. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission - a piece of genius from Raul654. And I think it's about ready to more widely publicise. Not only generating more free content, but changing industry expectations of what you need to do to promote. I'm somewhat embarrassed to still be able to point to Image:Richardschiff.jpg on Richard Schiff as an example of why artists and agents should release good promo images - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps those in the Bruce Springsteen camp would be happier if the general Wiki public saw something more appealing than the image currently available there.... eesh!?! :-D . 156.34.222.121 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Stevens

The only images of living celebrities allowed in wikipedia are those taken by would-be paparazzi with dime-store cameras. How many paparazzi photos are there likely to be of Ray Stevens? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See above - we've been getting slowly increasing numbers of decent celebrity promo pics. And there's no harm in asking on the article page, certainly while non-free images of living non-recluses are verboten per WP:NONFREE - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That latter policy thus ensuring that wikipedia, by and large, continues to look juvenile to the average viewer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy = David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a policy ensuring that wikipedia continues to (1) look stupid and (2) is proud of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NFL infobox changes

Please be careful with your mass edits. Removal of linebreaks, such as this one here, can seriously injure the formatting of an infobox. Thanks. Pats1 ^T/C 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what it's done - AWB has a setting to do general fixes, including fixing use of BR tags instead of newlines ... which messes up the intentional formatting of the boxes. I've switched that off, and I'll go back and fix what I did. D'oh! Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB question

Is this edit right? It does some weird things with the infobox, and puts the interwiki links in the wrong order, which is odd because AWB is supposed to follow the order given in Interwiki sorting order. Am I missing something? --Closedmouth (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox stuff doesn't affect the rendered infobox - remember that's just a series of parameters for the template. The interwiki sort order is as determined by AWB, and should use the standard one, which it pulls from the server each time it starts. I believe there was an AWB bug report or two about this. I've switched off sorting interwikis for now, though - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So that was just a random freak-out on AWB's part? Weird, it's never done that for me before. Well anyway, thanks for explaining, it's good to know I'm not losing my mind. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The interwiki sort order, I expect so. The messy template wikitext, all my fault - I'm tweaking the regexps I'm using to leave less of a mess. .NET's own special take on PCREs are just subtly different enough to any other take on PCREs to make life interesting - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the regexp a bit so it should leave the wikitext in the infobox a bit less messy - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Anomalist1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Anomalist1.png. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian Project

This arises from seeing recent edits via the recent changes in the indonesia project device on my user page. While it is encouraging to see an ex Perth Western Australian (sic) ask for free images of Indonesian sports persons - gasp - we of the very harrassed overworked and absolutely bewildered Indonesia Project english speaking editors noticeboard and trying to keep it from slipping into a bloody mirror of the indonesian indonesian project (ie WP Indonesia) people are finding that we will have to create a device to stop the indonesian language list of red links obsessed indonesians with little or no english from the indonesian project over contribute to the english wp indonesia project - as you have ventured into the territory - expect requests, pleading and various exasperations of the few who dare to stand in front of the tide of misapplied material trickled from the wp indonesia. Ok so i could have said it in 10 words - youve got a hundred. cheers SatuSuro 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main thing will be to watch the image upload queue. We expect more crap to come in. But that's the Wiki Way! i.e. (1) get lots of rubbish (2) throw away most of it. Oh well, it's got us this far - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - its just that at WP Indonesia we are either planning - or going to try draw a line in the sand to speak - thanks, maybe nothing will happen - at least thats what happens at the tasmania project - its a bit like sitting at a perth railway station during a rail strike :) SatuSuro 12:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Wiley

I don't know what you were doin' when you edited Grant Wiley but you completly DESTROYED the stats table. Why did you change || to | ??? Doin' so, RUINED IT! Yeah, I'm mad cuz I had to take time outta a major edit to fix your screw up! Crash Underride 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Owwwwwwwwww. That's horrible. I'll look closely into WTF I was doing and how much more of a mess I have to clean up. Sorry, sorry. I'll get onto this shortly - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to be hateful, but I was just p.o.ed when I wrote that. Sorry if I offended you. Crash Underride

No no, I mean what it did was horrible :-) First rule of editing with AWB: you are personally responsible for cleaning up all messes you make with it! - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] g'day david......

I've been trying to promote a project recently called Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which aims to sit alongside the good work of the wikipedia weekly folk in encouraging better communications between wiki folk of all persuasions and interests.... Our next scheduled chit chat is planned for tomorrow night at 00.00 (26th March) - and whilst a late one for you, I thought I'd drop you a line to see a) if you're interested in popping along tomorrow, or b) if you're interested / available in principle to join a conversation in the future - I think it'd be cool to have you!

It's not the technically slickest operation in the world, and you'd require a Skype ID, microphone and speakers if you did want to join in - otherwise, let me know if you've got any other questions at all! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No free image

Hi David, I've noticed you're adding the "no free image" image to lots and lots of Oregon-related biographies. I don't think this is the best thing. Many of the articles are reasonably good articles as is, rated "Start" or "B" class. The stock image makes a pretty good article look incomplete and unpolished, where there might not be much issue. We are extremely active in Oregon recruiting new members, keeping track of requests for images, etc. We are even working on proposed legislation for the 2009 session that would make state-produced images copyleft or public domain, making an enormous quantity of photos available for this purpose, and we also have a monthly meetup] in Portland that often involves collaboration on stuff like adding pictures.

In short, I think there's a good reason for the distinction between "article space" and "talk/wikiproject space," and that it should be our goal to present the cleanest possible articles to readers. Opportunities to recruit new help abound, and we're doing especially well at that in Oregon; though I definitely appreciate the spirit that motivates your recent additions, I think there are better ways to accomplish the goal.

If you want to discuss in more detail, it might be best to do it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no wikiproject has the power to declare itself closed to new content, nor closed to particular classes of users, nor to claim ownership of a series of articles. And if the article is a living bio without a picture, it is in fact unfinished. Wikipedia is a work in progress - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (Please read this struck-out response as if it wasn't written by someone being a touchy arse - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Easy there -- nobody's declaring anything. Certainly not a Wikiproject -- I'm expressing my view to you. I'm informing you of some of the things going on in the WikiProject, not attributing my views to the entire project. Your disagreement is not unwelcome, to the degree that it comes from a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Your accusations about what my words represent, however, are entirely unnecessary. I'd like to continue this discussion, if you're open to it, but from your response it looks like that's a long shot. -Pete (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right. I apologise for being an arse in my response above. What I mean is that even if you have a nice polished article, it's got to be open to new content, e.g. obvious things like missing pictures. Or red links in an article. Even a featured article is open to editing. And adding new stuff will often make the article lumpy and less polished, but all of Wikipedia is a work in progress and ridiculously far off finished - and articles do go through a cycle of add stuff, polish, add a lump of stuff, re-polish, add a lump of stuff, re-polish. So putting up picture placeholders is part of that cycle. Eventually it will get a picture and be a better article.

But it probably wouldn't have gotten that picture without a direct request for it. I put the placeholders on articles - particularly on every living bio I can - because they noticeably work really well at getting pictures, and showing the need for pictures. There shouldn't be a current politician article in the world that doesn't have a photo on it (I alerted the wikimediauk-l list to the disgrace that not having every UK politician article have a picture is). Etc.

I hope that makes why I'm doing this a bit clearer, and sorry again for being snappy about it - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay-- thanks much for the clarification. I have to run, but in short...I entirely and wholeheartedly agree about incompleteness in general not being a bad thing. I often add redlinks where they are likely to be created, sometimes "See also" items that will hopefully be worked into full paragraphs some day...obviously stub tags, and short sections. My problem with the image is that it takes a whole lot of real estate on the article, to say something that, I think, is pretty obvious to anybody who gets the idea that Wikipedia is editable.

That said, if you have experience that says these things are effective, that's news to me, and worth considering. The only ones I'm aware of are ones that have been sitting around for months or over a year. Anyway, I appreciate the fuller articulation of your goal, and will try to respond in more detail and/or take my camera with me next time I go to City Hall. -Pete (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The ones that are easily filled, get filled easily. The harder ones can stick around for months and years ;-) For UK politicians, our approach at present is to work through the parties - approaching MPs directly gets them trying to release stuff under home-crafted non-free licenses or whatever *headdesk*. The US is a lot better off in this regard with Federal public domain, and that doesn't necessarily apply to the states but is a good guideline for them. Many are almost impossible to fill. Etc. They don't magically make stuff appear in weeks, but can in months. Etc. Magnus Manske has some useful toys on the toolserver for searching for replacements for them on Flickr as well :-) It's all fun - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that is so for politicians, but any in context photo of the vast majority of footballers is likely to be either subject to copyright, or illegally, and probably poorly, taken. People might have a snap of their favourite player half-cut at an end of season social, but that does not enhance the article. If there were a more subtle tag that requested an image, it might bear fruit, but that silhouette is just plain ugly on a page. The lack of a photo might be remiss, it is not something that spoils the appearance of a page in the way that this does. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You might presume that as theory, but in practice I see a lot of good spectator snapshots on footballer articles already and no theoretical reason why there wouldn't be more. Furthermore - in practice - we already have the phenomenon of famous sports photographers with extensive collections putting their seconds up on Commons under GFDL - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice there has been a comment suggesting the image to appear as a default in the template(s) if none is specified rather than tons of edits. Agathoclea (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That'd be damn fine too, if your template-fu is up to it. Mine isn't as yet :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I could knock that together by stealing code from elsewhere - but distinguishing boys and girls will be a problem. Unless there is a particular template which is gender specific you would want me to try. Agathoclea (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically all the infoboxes about people need some consolidation and a base template they can incorporate ... Image:Replace this image1.svg is horrible. But look over Category:People infobox templates and see what catches your eye - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started experimenting with {{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer/test}} but am coming up against a wall on the display. Will try over the next few days again. Agathoclea (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some templates have an attribute "gender =" - this would be useful to add to the templates. As far as I can tell, in general male:female bios are about 5:1 to 9:1. Some templates, like the football player ones, are about 100:1 male:female, but one still has to get the female ones right ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Football biographies

Hi David, I have noticed that you are going through all of football biographies on my watchlist in first name aplha order adding the no-free-image picture. I believe that the consensus at Wikiproject Football is that it is unneccessary to add it to all infoboxes because it is so unlikely that any particluar user is going to have access to a free image that cannot already be found on the internet and the fact that it encourages users with no understanding of copyright issues to upload copyrighted images (a constant problem already). If we did want the no-free image pic, it would be easy to set it as a default on the footballer infobox, but consensus seems to be against it, so it wont be done like that. In the case of actors, scientists, politicians, historical figures, etc, it might be an idea to go to the relevant projects and consult whether the no-free-image picture is wanted, and then add it as the default image, saving you tens of thousands of edits. Regards, English peasant 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice, asking tends to get images, as noted above, so I'm strongly inclined to continue; the objection seems to be based only on conjecture. Do you have a pointer to this consensus formation? From your description, it sounds entirely conjectural - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I'll be getting quantifiable numbers from the latest en:wp full history database backup as soon as Erik Zachte finds a handy machine with 16GB memory to process it on ...) - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Make that when someone feels like going through the history dump. I just asked again on wikitech-l.

Please stop, or at least contribute to the discussion at the Football WikiProject. These ugly templates serve only to make an article less attractive. - fchd (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about placeholder images

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php - Magnus's Free Image Search Tool! Go through Commons, Flickr and a pile of other free content photo collections ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure it's working ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB, requests for images and so on...

Hey David, there's quite a swell of discussion about your recent splurge on WP:FOOTBALL articles asking for images. We (the project) are subject to enormous amounts of copy-written uploads which have to be correctly dealt with and your recent mass of edits makes life a lot worse for us. I understand what you're attempting to do but it's causing a massive headache for the members of the project as we have to go on a mass patrol of people uploading non-free images they find on Google to sate your requests. In a lot of cases (say, pre 1990 or so) these "free" images will be almost impossible to source. I'm asking you now to stop editing the pages to add these "requests" as they cause more problems than they solve. Feel free to discuss the issue with me further but I will revert any further requests you make as they are disruptive and add nothing to the project. I hope you understand and look forward to discussing the matter further should you wish to. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Worrying that asking for participation will encourage bad participation, and then gathering up a bunch of people to actively discourage participation, is ... greatly missing the point of a wiki.

At the moment I'm working on gathering up-to-date numbers on the effectiveness of the placeholders in securing images. I'll get back to you - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter James Knight image request again

Is there any way to get AWB not to add such a request (apart from getting a copyleft image, which we've got Buckley's of)? Andjam (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to not run the same list twice. Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

David, I'm making it a regular practice to revert your additions of the "no free image" image as I see them on Oregon-related bios. The discussion at WPT:ORE makes it clear there is strong consensus against including the image. I'd of course prefer that you not add them to begin with, but you seem set against taking input, so that's a debate I'm probably going to pass on. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the "no ownership of articles by wikiprojects either" thing - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're free to interpret it as ownership if you like. I don't. I see it as a strong consensus of a group of people interested in certain articles. I note that another WikiProject has voiced objections as well, and you have been similarly dismissive with them. Anyway, if you feel I or anyone is violating WP:OWN, I guess you could start an WP:RFC or some other bureaucratic process. Let me know. -Pete (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've set it to skip on the word "Oregon", to keep the peace - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- thank you! -Pete (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If it hiccups, let me know - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Pete's mom. I've just had a very interesting time, first locating this discussion, starting with #No free image above (to which I was alerted by your comment on Pete's talk page), then following up by reading the material on WPT:ORE. (I actually had quite a time finding an example of the template in question! but I did.) I'm writing here because, although I can tell (David) that you're not really happy with the outcome, I am so impressed by this example of "the Wikipedia process" (of discussion and consensus) working well. Thank you (all) for sticking with it. -- Martha (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

*cough* I'm actually not trying to p*iss people off here ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

*giggle* Well, that's not the worst motive in the world when you're trying to get something positive accomplished! -- Martha (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Sholle image

The image on Jon Sholle is already free content, licensed using CC 3.0. I am confused as to the nature of your request. Iamblessed (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll be me failing to check for GIFs as well as every other format. My mistake, sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. AWB looks like a pretty useful tool but like all bots I'm sure it sometimes does things you didn't intend. I've already had some trouble with the copyright on this image so I've been keeping a close eye on it; it's taught me a lot about the way things work around here. Have a good one Iamblessed (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be just a bit of a sorcerer's apprentice at times ... look after the baby, idly clicking the big green "Save" button, then get a talk page notice of a mess you have to clean up ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maybe a list of corrections between stable vetted versions of articles

This might be useful for a list of corrections between stable vetted versions of articles after or as part of our implementing stable (flagged) versions. Once we mark a version of an article as authoritative, it would be very useful for it to have an associated page so the when it is replaced with a more authoritative page, the changes that are specifically to fix errors are noted so that they are not unfixed because someone thought the fix was a typo or an oversight. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha, nice one! Might actually be fitting! - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] want a free picture?

for Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff - I'll put you in contact with her and you can tell her what to do.--Smkolins (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

w00t! Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission is where people can go to submit a pic themselves; and/or email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org (with full statement "I am the owner of this image and release it under" etc etc). We need to start seriously publicising the photo submission channel, and that's part of why I'm going hog wild with the placeholders - they really do recruit pics of people themselves, as well as pics from readers who may never have thought of contributing before - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)