User talk:David.Monniaux/archive2

Archives: 1

Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg
Can you give a clear license for that? --Saperaud 03:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This user has not given any such "clear license" and has not replied to this question (of almost a year ago now): See the talk page of the Nobel medal image: Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. There is no such license. Such images of Nobel medals (all of them) are trademark and copyright protected, as explained on the talk page. All uses of the image in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons need to be deleted until and unless such written permission to use the image is requested and received directly from the Nobel Foundation contacts given in the copyright notice (see links in the talk page). --NYScholar 06:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Scrolling through this user talk page, I notice a few other instances of similar problems relating to images that this user has uploaded, with unsubstantiated claims of being within "fair use" or having a "license" that he appears not to have. When such potential copyright violations are questioned by other users, he does not reply or support his claims. Such images are likely copyright violations also, and they need to be deleted immediately from Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia Commons. --NYScholar 07:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey Condoms
Please tag this. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in France
With regards to religious liberty in France, you may be interested to know that the convicted rapist Swami Premananda still has centres in France. and he gives his followers darshan from behind the prison bars. Also, the Indian charlatan rapist guru Sathya Sai Baba (SSB) continues to have gullible foolish followers in France. Based on this, I think there is quite a lot of religious freedom in France. May be it is good that there are laws to protect naive people like myself against exploiters and megalomanics in France, though I admit that (perceived) persecution should be prevented because then adherents will isolate themselves even more from mainstream society. (I know this from experience.) Read my story with regards to SSB here if you are interested. Andries 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

de

I think I may be wrong. The dates are wrong for me, so please delete my update if possible.

I was an English assistant expelled in 1998 from a school in Creteil for not removing a turban. The poor boy in the Le Monde article was probably someone different - although I didn't know there were any Sikhs in the academie.

I changed it because the Amnesty International Report on religious freedom in France for the year had me wrongly listed as a pupil as well.

Thanks anyway for the tips about anonimity.

Congratulations
For getting French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools to FA status!! -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  15:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sarkozy article
The language you just changed in the Sarkozy article has a "fausse amie" ring to it in English: you said,


 * "In 1993, Sarkozy was in the national news for personally *negociating* with "Human Bomb", a man who had taken small children hostage in a kindergarten in Neuilly. "Human Bomb" was finally killed that day by policemen of the RAID, who had entered the school *unbeknownst* to the attacker"

But "negotiating" (note spelling) has a negative connotation, particularly in hostage situations: "one never negotiates with terrorists" you know is the common saying -- one not always observed in practice, but at least we say it -- so by saying that Sarkozy "negotiated" the article is suggesting that he was weak, tried to compromise, gave in to the threats, etc.

Whatever one might think about Sarko and his political policies, however, I believe it is unquestionable that he was both very brave and very strong in his handling of that Neuilly incident: so "confronting" conveys that better, and more accurately described what Sarkozy actually did -- certainly by contrast to what others might have done. I don't recall anything at all weak or compromising or "giving in" about his personal conduct that day. So the man deserves his due, I think: the term "negotiating" doesn't do that.

One other point, in your changes: "unbeknownst" is an archaism even in English English, and it certainly looks very strange in américain. The English do use "whilst", still, but it has been some time -- if ever -- since "unbeknownst" has appeared there, I'll bet. Sounds pretty medieval. I think the term in fact would have been "unbeknown", but even that sounds archaic. I suggest using simply "unknown": both English and American usage.

I'd rather defer to you to make these changes, out of my respect for the great & very successful efforts which you have made here and elsewhere to get things French onto Wikipedia in English. I hope you'll continue -- I enjoy reading them.

--Kessler 00:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with "confronting", as I saw it, was that Sarkozy did not go there with a gun in hand and tried to beat up the guy, which is the image that I get from "confrontation". :-) David.Monniaux 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the following here yesterday, working from an Internet cafe terminal which had a very strange interface, and my addition does not show up now. Weird. Any idea what might have happened?: my suggestion was,

"In 1993, Sarkozy was in the national news for personally dealing with "Human Bomb", a man who had taken small children hostage in a kindergarten in Neuilly. "Human Bomb" was finally killed that day by policemen of the RAID, who had entered the school without the attacker's knowledge"

-- and the meaning of "dealing with" is nearly the same as "negotiating", in literal English translation, but it avoids the syntactical tangle of "negotiating with terrorists" previously mentioned -- also, "without the attacker's knowledge" conforms to modern plain meaning English usage, in both the US & UK, avoiding "beknown" variant archaisms.

I am not a Sarko fan, but I believe that he ought to be given his due for his personal bravery and effectiveness in this police incident, so the implications of that "negotiating" term would worry me and I encourage you to make these changes.

--Kessler 11:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Texas Ranger Division
Hi, David! I've been reading your concerns regarding the FA nomination of this article, and I wanted you to know that I take them seriously. I have already addressed them at the proper FAC page, but if you have the time, I normally prefer to talk about such things calmly and more privately, if you don't mind, that is. I understand that, basically, two things worry you:


 * * The tone of certain phrases, the one stating that the agency is usually regarded as "one of the most effective in the world" being the most sensitive one. Although this is based on statements of members of other agencies such as the FBI and Scotland Yard, rather than sustaining it, I preferred to simply change it to a more neutral one which states that "it has taken part in several thousand cases with a high level of efectiveness". This is based on a mere statistical analysis and sourced in the Handbook of Texas, which is a serious source, created and compiled by the History Department of the University of Texas at Austin. The example I offered you at the FAC discussion was merely intended to provide an example of the international fame of the agency among some circles; I would never even dare to use a Tribute Page as a source for a serious article, and I invite you to check its sources to put your mind at ease.
 * I've gone in detail through the rest of the article to observe exactly where else this tone may be present, and I believe that it may be observed at a couple of paragraphs at the "Modernization and present day" section. Such wording was not coined by me; it rather is an adaptation of the statements of several of my sources, which are entirely books here. Just so you can rest assured of the seriousness of such assertions, I've added sources to each phrase that could be argumented on that basis.


 * * I understand your other concern is the discussion of the brutality and excesses committed by the TRs in modern times. I assure you, no such discussion currently exists. I've done an extensive research throughout books (including one of the most critical ones, used as reference - The Texas Rangers And The Mexican Revolution: The Bloodiest Decade, 1910-1920, by Charles Harris III & Louis Sadler) and newspapers; and no reports of Rangers abusing their authority have taken public notoriety in the last decades. I think that brutality and injustice committed by members of the agency at late 19th and early 20th centuries have been addressed thoroughly at the article already; but please, if you feel that more detail is needed, just let me know so I can expand it a bit more with extra precisions.

Your nice words about finding the article instructive are very much appreciated, and I'll gladly address all your thoughts, which are very valuable, to help it attain featured status. Warm greetings, Shauri    smile!  23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bonjour, mon chéri David! Thank you so much for the kind and encouraging message! I must say that, as a European, I fully agree with your reserves towards the usual American expression of "best in the world"; and just like you, it's not anti-americanism at all, just the common uses of a particular country.


 * I also concur with your appreciation regarding some of the more "dark" episodes and their wording. I tried to be as objective as possible, but always something slips through the net. This serves to show how valid it is to listen to other readers' thoughts and concerns, because a different opinion can always help to improve one's work. The phrase regarding the brutality of McNelly's men that worried you has been rephrased, within the facts presented by the source; so thanks to you, now it's historically accurate and clearly presented.


 * I've also done a full re-reading of the article to discover any other places where this could happen, but I have not observed any, to my humble opinion. At other parts where brutality and violence are exposed (like the early 20th century), the wording is presented in a much more clear way, I hope: I mention them as "sordid misdeeds of brutality and injustice" (properly sourced), which I humbly believe to be a straight general description without going into particular examples that would take much space. The same could go for "300 up to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers" and "Reports of Rangers abusing their authority and breaking the law themselves became numerous" (sourced again). Do you agree with me, David? I'd love to hear your thoughts.


 * As you see, I've put immense effort in creating and enhancing this article, and I wish to address all your concerns with my best effort until you consider it worthy of becoming featured. Nothing would please me more than seeing all the points that you correctly raise solved satisfactorily. My warmest wishes, Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  01:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My dear David, thank you so much for your nice and kind words. The surely mean a lot to me, coming from a great FA writer like you. I also want to thank you wholeheartedly for the constructive criticism and your will to cooperate in improving the article, and for actively searching an agreement to its contents. Meeting you and being able to reach such agreement and your praising is by far one of the greatest satisfactions this FAC has brought me. You have a new friend over here, should you ever need me. Merci beaucoup! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. I swear I had no idea it was you at IRC - did you get my pm?

French names
I wonder if you might have missed some comments on names by archiving your previous talk page at about the same time as I left some comments. In particular, I wasn't sure in the changes I made what you intended in the phrase that now reads: "A recent law allowed couples to choose, for all their children, which name they would use..." Does "for all their children" mean that they can choose differently for each child or that they can make one choice which must be applied to all their children? Adrian Robson 08:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Ranger Division
Hi David Monniaux. I see that you have chosen to ignore Shauri's announcement that she has met your demands (you have been fairly active on Wikipedia after it, but failed to express your opinion), I will strike your comment. Best,--Wiglaf 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

About-Picard Law
David, looking over my comments, I hope you weren't offended. Perhaps they're overly personal; I didn't mean to be discouraging. Tony 16:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikihug
&hearts;&hearts;purplefeltang e  l  &hearts;  &hearts;  21:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
re your message "The Sikh guy told me the dates did not match...". Sorry, thought a valid edit had got deleted in error (which sometimes happens, as I'm sure you know). By the way: the edit just after is vandalism, done by the same IP who did two other edits before me. Unfortunately the article is too displaying slowly for me to try to sort out the mess (and I might make things worse anyway :-)), so I'll leave it to you, if that's OK. By the way: great article! --A bit iffy 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Paris article
David, je voulais attirer ton attention sur l'article concernant Paris. Il y a là-bas un Wikipédien du nom de Josefu (User:Josefu), je pense que tu as déjà eu affaire à lui, qui trouve que l'article Paris est très mauvais et qui veut le changer entièrement (excuse du peu!). Il pense que l'article est bon à jeter aux orties entièrement, et il a entrepris de créer un tout nouvel article de sa composition qu'il mettra en ligne dans les tous prochains jours si j'ai bien compris, en remplacement du présent article. Tu t'imagines si je me mettais à remplacer l'article New York City entièrement par un article écrit par moi sous prétexte que je ne trouve pas le présent article assez bon à mon goût! Consulte la discussion page à l'article Paris, Josefu y a écrit beaucoup, beaucoup, BEAUCOUP de messages expliquant sa "démarche". J'ai répondu à certains de ses messages, mais je ne veux pas m'enfermer dans un dialogue à deux, alors je pense qu'il serait bon que d'autres Wikipédiens parlent avec lui et lui fassent savoir ce qu'ils pensent de son initiative. Ses messages sont scindés en deux. Il en a mis une partie en bas de la discussion page, comme on fait normalement, mais les messages les plus récents il les a mis tout en haut de la discussion page. J'ai jeté un oeil sur son projet d'article, et j'y ai trouvé beaucoup d'erreurs (par exemple "there are five lines (A, B, C, D and E), and all, save the latter connected to Paris' gare Saint-Lazare train station, pass through Paris' largest and most central Châtelet-Les-Halles station", c'est faux, il a oublié que la C non plus ne passe pas à Chatelet les Halles), et puis beaucoup de phrases maladroitement écrites il me semble. Enfin regarde. Hardouin 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

French Directory
Could I ask you to weigh in at Talk:Directory (political) about the recent move of French Directory to Directory (political)? Thanks. Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying again
David, I messaged you a few weeks ago about the Paris article, but you didn't answer. If you have no time, can you recommend another knowledgeable admin to contact? That Paris article has gone completely out of hand now, due mainly to user Josefu (who renamed himself ThePromenader since). He intends to rewrite about 80% of the Paris article, and set up a special "work page" (ThePromenader/Paris) where he presents his work. What's crazy is that he asks other Wikipedians to go on his "work page" to give him comments and edit his work page if they see fit, before he uploads his work to the Paris article, in the end replacing about 80% of the current article (not just editing 80% of the article, but replacing about 80% of the content of the article with something entirely new). It looks like article appropriation to me. I am quoting two sentences from ThePromenader that sum it all (his words in bold, my comments in bracket):

"On that note, I'm an English-speaking ex-pat living here since 1989 so I thought myself a good enough bridge to swallow the task [of doing an English Paris page on Wikipedia]."

"from here [he just explained the purpose of his work page] I can only consider a lack of response [to his work page proposals] as a consensus to change [the Paris article]"

I am really wasting a lot of time because of this, and besides being the subject of daily personal attacks, it is time consuming to try to reply the very many messages of ThePromenader (he edits the Paris talk page and the Paris article itself 10 to 20 times a day!). I really don't know what to do, and I am close to giving in really. ThePromenader's new article, as it appears on his "work page", contains lots and lots of factual errors (he himself, a photographer and art director from what I understand, admits to be not very knowledgeable about the subjects he is writing about), it is often badly worded (the economy part is disastrous IMHO, I'm talking as an economics graduate), and the whole point of the new article, from what I understand, is to reduce Paris to the Ville de Paris proper, with only brief mentions here and there of the suburbs and the metropolitan area. As you can easily understand, it makes no sense, for example, to talk about the economy of the Ville de Paris only, without including the suburbs. Anyway, that's his bias.

What do you think is the best course of action? It seems useless to continue replying his very many messages on the talk page, and at the same time if I revert his poor edits I am being accused of "stalling the article", or I am being accused of article appropriation myself (of course!). On the other hand it is not my job, or anyone's job, to help him edit his "work page" before he uploads it to the Paris article. I feel a little bit hopeless to be honest... Hardouin 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also this
Since I'm at it, I also wanted to point to your attention an anynomous user using the IP addresses 82.35.100.238, 80.195.235.28, and 82.35.100.95. This anonymous user has been repeatedly vandalizing the Paris and Economy of Paris articles. Basically, each time he deletes the statement that Paris GDP is on par with London GDP (based on Eurostat figures), and writes instead that Paris GDP is second to London. He doesn't explain why he does that, neither does he express himself on the talk page. I have warned him many times, I have left a note at Talk:Economy of Paris, but it was to no avail. Check the history of his contributions for more details. I don't know what can be done. Block him? Make an official warning before? Again if you have no time please tell me which admin I could contact. Thanks. Hardouin 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

burt reynolds is really cool he was born in 1936 jhe isn really old but  young in my heart

French military images
Hi, I noticed you've uploaded lots of nice images for the French military, such as Image:BA702 CASSIC 2004 Img0199.jpg. As part of tightening up "fair use" (which is very restricted on which articles may use the image), I'd like to know what rules they have on image reuse - for instance, if the picture is put out for publicity purposes, there is publicity, which gives us some more freedom, or along the lines of CanadaCopyright, which gives us considerable latitude for Canadian images. Do you know of a web page that might shed more light on the situation? Thanks! Stan 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting, perhaps additional special templates would be appropriate, along the lines of FrenchNavyImage that you created. Right now I'm working to empty out the generic fair-use category, with the expectation of revisiting more difficult cases later. Stan 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers used instead of blogs
I would like your feedback on the use of newspapers as a source instead of blogs. In the case of the Robert Clark Young article, I have found newspaper sources that cover much of the same material as the blogs that have been used in the article. When I replaced the blog sources with the newspaper sources, Alabamaboy reverted every single one of my edits. Also, very strangely, he accused me on the discussion page of being Mr. Young himself!

This is the Wikipedia Guideline I am trying to follow with my edits:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."

Thus, I have replaced the blog sources with newspaper sources. Again, let me stress that this has not led to much change in the text of the article itself--what I'm trying to do here is change the nature of the sources so that they themselves comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

Could Alabamaboy and I get some feedback on this? I wonder if you could go over to the Robert Clark Young history and compare both versions of the sourcing--the one using newspapers, and the one using blogs. Thank you. Berenise 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that there are three reasons the article was reverted: 1) Berenise made the changes despite a lack of consensus and my objections on the Talk:Robert Clark Young. In short, the online references are refered to in the newspaper and print articles, making the online sources primary sources. The article also has many print sources which complement and add to the online sources. 2) The edits made the article less NPOV b/c they removed opposing viewpoints. While these references may be online, they are from credible named sources who are considered experts in their respected areas. 3) There is a strong possibility that Berenise is Robert Clark Young. Young previously edited the article about himself and most of Berenise's edits since coming to Wikipedia have been to the Young article. I'm trying to clear this up with Berenise; once she proves she is not Young I'd love to get opinions from other editors about this situation. For full details, see Talk:Robert Clark Young. --Alabamaboy 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Street harassment
L'image que vous avez mis sur la page de l'article Street harassment est tout-à-fait à propos. Braveau!--Rockero 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crazy article
David, I think you may want to have a look at the article called French people, which I have just discovered. This article is the craziest I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and I mean crazy as in insane, appalingly biased. French people are presented as an "ethnic group" who inhabit France and also parts of North America and other continents. I don't think even Jean-Marie Le Pen would have dared to write such an article influenced by racial theories. I see no solution short of totally deleting the article. Another solution would be to rename the article "French nationals" or "French citizens", but then we would have to change almost the entire content of the article. Let me know what you think. Hardouin 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

French people article debate
I personally am not trying to push my own "political POV" (if you were intending the comment towards me specifically) but am trying to come to a neutral agreement on the subject of indigenous French people. Hardouin seems to have an ethnic nihilist (as in he believes in total disregard of indigenous European peoples and that the countries have always been heterogenous societies) POV which he does try to push on several articles and I continue to debate with him and I sometimes have to monitor his edits. I want a neutral solution to the debate on the article of French people and am trying to avoid seeing it get deleted. Best regards,

Epf 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the mapsofindia images

Wikimedia Commons
Hey David, I saw that you permanently blocked me on Wikimedia Commons, because I uploaded pictures of celebreties that I was not allowed to. You said, you would unlock me once i gave some explanation. I will try to do that here, because I'm not able to do that in the Wikimedia Commons (because you blocked me)!!! I am really sorry for uploading pictures with the wrong license. I uploaded them with the Software Commonist and I made an mistake. The pictures were not for the Wikimedia Commons section, but for the English Wikipedia section with the license "Free to Use". I uploaded some of my personal pictures first to Wikimedia Commons and the programm Commonist saved those preferences. I'm really sory, and I promise it's not gonna happen again. Please unlock me in Wikimedia Commons. Thank you, your Outburn. --outBurn 09:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Thompson
That was added by 198.209.225.228, whom I assume is the creator.

French people article for deletion
David, did you notice that Articles for deletion/French people was archived and the debate closed by User:Johnleemk? This user wrote: "The result of the debate was no consensus; keep." He also removed the AfD tag from the French people article. I find this action particularly reproachable. I counted the result of the vote, and discounting people who voted twice or more, I find 29 Wikipedians favored deleting the article, 17 favored keeping the article, 1 favored keeping the article but with a totally new content, and 1 had no preference. There is clear majority for deleting. To say that the result of the debate was "no consensus" is simply intoxication. What should we do now? Delete the article? Reinsert the AfD tag and de-archive the debate? Let me know. Hardouin 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And I did not vote ;-). Thanks for writing something new on the topic. Ericd 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/French people
If the discussion is so urgent, take it to the talk page. If you guys can actually reach consensus to delete it, renominate it. Otherwise, there's no point for it to remain open. You haven't found consensus after five days worth of debate -- what would be so different after a week or two weeks? In the first place, why is AfD necessary for the debate? Any interested parties can continue discussing on the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. Improving is always better than deleting (unless the topic is absolutely worthless). :) Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
David, I just checked the French people article, and all your edits were reverted. In fact this article goes through a cycle of edits and reverts, back and forth, it's very frustrating. Now it says that "French people" can refer to French speaking people, whether French citizens or not. This is absurd! People of Cote d'Ivoire who speak French are not "French people"! I wonder how can people write so stupid things. Here is my proposal for a definition along which the article could be built. I want your advice before writing this in the article:
 * French people are the people living in France (inculding overseas départements and territories) who regard themselves as French, whether or not they are French nationals.

I think this definition is inclusive of immigrants without French citizenship but who regard themselves as French. On the other hand it does not include temporary foreign residents as well as French nationals who do not regard themselves as French (some second generation beurs in the suburbs or some Kanak of New Caledonia may not regard themselves as "French", even though they are French natinonals).

So what do you think of it? Hardouin 10:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Union des étudiants juifs de France
Hi David. Would you be able to help with the translation of Union des étudiants juifs de France into English? I copied the French version but I have almost no French background, just Spanish. Let me know if you can give it a look. Thanks. Gadig 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie
David, the user which you blocked is a sock puppet of User:Antidote. It appears he has just been using that account to upload images without bothering to tag them correctly, which is something he has been doing since last September and he probably did not particularly care whether that account was blocked as he has 3 other accounts. I would appreciate if you could look at Requests for comment/Antidote which I originally created expecting that it would lead to the block of his sock puppets, but unfortunately no admin has taken any action prior to your intervention. I created a list of his contributions which show clear correlation between the accounts here, his sock puppet voting here and various dubious comments here. Arniep 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge request status inquiry.
Good day,

A while ago, you requested that the Jury article be merged with the article that discusses the workings of a Jury trial. It has been about a year, and no action has been taken. Could you please tell me what the current status of this request is? It appears no action has been taken on the request in the interim. How long does (or should) it take to have a resolution to this issue? Folajimi(talk)


 * Thanks for the timely response; it is greatly appreciated. Based on your initial reply, I have a follow-on question to ask on the matter:
 * May I ask why you requested the merge in the first place? According to the article's talk page, you wanted certain facts moved; not the entire article. If that is what you really intended, then I doubt you will find any resistance to making the edit yourself, provided you explained your intentions before making such an edit.
 * Considering that the merge request is currently dormant, it seems to be little more than an eyesore... Folajimi(talk)

Anselm Page/Talk
Can you be more explicit about NPOV and source citation violations on the Anselm Page?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

karl bunker has repeated removed Contemporary Issues section, despite citations
David, Karl wants it his way, no matter what; he has twice removed the Contemporary Issues section, despite citations.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas II
No. Adam 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

LS Studio
Although I don't know whether any other part of the article is verifiable or not, the following information is not verifiable: "No actual sexual acts were portrayed." The article is protected; should I request unprotection, or just wait? If it were unprotected, I would delete the information. Joey Q. McCartney 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your deletion of that Julius Striecher section. Unfortunately I doubt that it will stick... because a fellow editor named PaxTerra wants that to stay there. ... maybe you could visit our talk page about it and add your view. Thanks! Netscott 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact Wikipedia page
On the contact Wikipedia page there is an empty box on the bottom, probably from pre-formatting, ie a leading space. It doesn't look very good. Qutezuce 22:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Satyasheel Deshpande
Thanks for settling the copyvio issue over this article. A question, though: does the fact that permission has been given to use the copyrighted text mean that the text cannot be altered? I'd like to clean it up a bit, and I don't want to piss anyone off or break the terms of use. As I said on the talk page, it reads like a press release and needs some serious cleanup. Microtonal 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We request that permission for text should be under the GFDL license, which permits derivate works (that is, modifications). Hope this helps.


 * (Note, however, that we are not permitted to libel, etc., individuals, but this has nothing to do with copyright.) David.Monniaux 05:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks. Microtonal 08:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
You submitted a case that wasn't following the template, I filled it in correctly for you: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10_Anselm_of_Canterbury. We're sorry for the late reply but is this case still in need of mediation? --Fasten 10:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD
I noticed that you'd added to the talk page that copyright permission has been received. How was this done? What was your involvement? Why is there no information about what level of copying the author permitted (i.e. just the list of names, or did the author give away the whole book?). I'm interested in how the process works. Also, where has all the article-history gone? --Colin 11:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What am I supposed to do with the ticket number? Is there a web site that I can enter it in order to see the permission details? Otherwise, what is to stop someone faking it? --Colin 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Collectivevision.jpg
I understand Image:Collectivevision.jpg was deleted by you, "supposedly at the request of the copyright holder" (?). As I was the person who uploaded this image and sought the copyright holder's permission (which was given, and the email forwarded to the appropriate wikimedia email address), I'd like to know what happened. I have re-uploaded this image, believing it was a stupid bot which deleted it. Can you give me further details please, as it's very frustrating seeing images get deleted without a trace.

&mdash;Pengo 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd external links
I'm not quite sure why you did this. The huge quarrel you saw was between several regular editors and an administrator of a Pink Floyd illegal bootleg trading site which was a clear violation of WP:EL in several ways. The user (Pink Floyd For Free) who repeatedly added the bootleg site was blocked indefinitely for link spamming that and a half-dozen other related articles.

The only other posts on the talk page about external sites involve another question about notability and violation of WP:EL #3 again (the link was kept anyway), and a post about someone linkspamming from back in May 2005. There's hardly raging fights on the Pink Floyd talk page between rival site operators. - dharmabum 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kelner
Was it you who got his page protected? If so, why? I'm listening to his radio show right now and he's pretty much encouraging vandalism of it.

Alex Grey's image
Thanks for letting me know what haappened to the image. It did appear that a script had deleted it, as far as i could tell, as no trace is left of the image, and i would have expected an admin to inform the uploader of the image, and the person who originally sought and gained permission from the copyright holder (both the same person in this case) that the image was being deleted. Please see Image:Collectivevision.jpg to see what it looks like to a user after their image has been deleted, and all the hints as to why it was done so.

Pengo 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaisergruft
Thank you for pointing out the confusion. I have now added to the auxilliary text on each of the graphics

''The number before a person's name corresponds with that person's entry in the detailed listing of occupants of each Vault, to which it is hyperlinked. When necessary to establish continuity, a person buried elsewhere is assigned a number preceded by an x and then listed in the Selected Other Habsburgs section.''

which appears in the main article, but should have also been placed with each graphic.

I had left Marie Antionette's entry in Selected Other Habsburgs with the burial place empty so that someone like you who knows can fill it in. I have been reluctant to do so because I have seen conflict in the sources between Chapelle Expiatoire and Saint Denis Basilica, so I wasn't sure which to list. Also, I am under the impression that all the tombs in St Denis are actually empty due to the events of 1870. But I am not an expert in these things, and based upon your statement that she is in St Denis, I have edited her listing to show her there.

Thanks again for your sharp eye!--StanZegel  (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmations of permissions
Please see Template_talk:ConfirmationOTRS: using this template for images may result in conflicting and/or incorrect licensing claims. Lupo 19:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo
Why would you return the page about Kosovo from an ultra-nationalistic Albanian point of view. What do you know about Kosovo

Thank you. But the better thing would be to delete the page temporarily, until wikipedia finds someone who is not from the Balkans to write an unbiased article. Is it possible to do such a thing

who gave you the power to close the KOSOVO page?
When I came to this site and read what I saw about Kosovo I was stunned to see such trash. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia? The article is full of biased information, very one-sided favoring the Albanians, and the history is very crooked indeed.

This must be fixed immediately. I cannot believe you can let Albanians get away even with this. They are well known for lies and thievery.

Confirmations of permission again
I've just done a rewrite of Confirmation of permission. Maybe you should take a look and correct any errors I may have made. I've basically tried to give clearer instructions, and also have mentioned that both the request and the answer should be forwarded to Wikimedia. Lupo 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP
I just fixed a broken OTRS template at Talk:Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP, but I wanted to confirm that permission has indeed been received, and that the template as it currently stands was your intention. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

David, isn't that clearly a vanity page? Joey Q. McCartney 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kourou
David, I inserted your Kourou image in the infobox at the Kourou article. Could you crop the image to have it fit the infobox a bit better? Check Cayenne or Collioure for examples how images fit infoboxes nicely. 300px is the width normally used. I suggest croping about a quarter of the image on the left, and another quarter on the right. What do you think? Hardouin 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dominique Strauss Kahn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dominique Strauss Kahn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dirigisme
You are the original creator of the article on Dirigisme. Could you take a look at that page again and the links I added to further reading (related to other economic principles) and give me your input as to whether those links are proper for wikipedia? One editor is reverting the page, accusing my editing as a LaRouche idea (see American System (economics)) and therefore just simply reverting the links to: Communism, Socialism, Mercantilism, etc. that readers could take if they want to know more about alternative systems or similiar systems. I thought it would be perfectly legitimate to add such links to improve the article. Whatever you think is important, regardless of whether you agree with the other editor or myself. If you can offer some sort of compromise I would consider that as well. Thank You. --Northmeister 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DADVSI
Nice work creating the article, badly needed. Juste "un reproche": pourquoi ne pas avoir ajouté le lien vers un article (en note, afin d'avoir le titre du journal et de l'article + la date)? Le DADVSI et ses péripéties valent aussi surement un commentaire sur copyright, afin de montrer les diversités d'approche du droit d'auteur selon les pays... Tazmaniacs 22:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

SAIX proxies (again)
This issue has come up before, but we South Africans are getting blocked on a regular basis due to multiple transparent proxies being forced on us. You mentioned before that you can whitelist proxies like these, so I'd appreciate it if you can take a look at the following list. Thanks, dewet|&trade; 08:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sent an email to Tim Starling (according to meta:XFF project), with the details of the proxies, and he replied that they have been whitelisted. Sorry for the bother. dewet|&trade; 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman
Dear David. Because of your contribution to Entrism in the last few months I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman, which have strongly connected topics. You might have seen that a moderation was attempted on those pages after some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. He agreed to the moderation but then did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism). In my opinions and others, including the moderator assigned, Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. I still hope Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Since the dispute centres on entryism, your contribution will probabaly valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks! --Duncan 17:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocage des IP de la BPI sur fr:
Bonjour, je viens de me rendre compte que l'IP 129.102.254.253, celle de nombreuses machines de la bibliothèque du centre Pompidou, a été bloquée sur fr: pour cause de vandalisme, ce qui m'empêche de contribuer à fr: à partir la BPI même quand je suis connecté avec mon pseudo. Quand j'essaie de faire une modif sur fr:, on me dit d'aller voir la page de Poppy (qui apparemment n'a pas de compte sur en:)... conseil d'une grande pertinence puisque les pages de discussion sont elles aussi bloquées en écriture ! Apokrif 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * C'est réglé, désolé pour le dérangement. Apokrif 12:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help
I'm asking you for help, again, because of a constant vandalism on Kosovo page. I would like to ask you to lock the page again, but previously return the older version made by user Litany. Thanks, Gianni ita 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging
What tag did you mean to put on Image:Snail on a car p1120083.jpg? Template:DMonniaux doesn't exist. --Carnildo 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 19:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Paris infobox

 * Here's the message I left on every talkpage containing the 'Large French Cities' infobox:
 * As a result of some discussion over the past weeks, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome.


 * ... I'm sorry I missed you the first time around : ) --  T HE P ROMENADER  07:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Paris Education
David,

In addition to your being one of the Paris article's original contributors, I noticed that you seem to be quite knowledgable in all things "French Education". It has been requested that the Paris article have an "Education" section: could you contribute something there? All I've done for now is make a 'structure note' according to other 'big city' articles, but feel free to remove/alter/ignore if the layout is not suited to French education. T HE P ROMENADER 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to ITN
Hello, in the update you made to the ITN template, you did not remove the previous picture description nor add a picture description to the new entry. More seriously, you did not protect the image as well. I've addressed these issues. Please be careful in future when updating main page entries, as any vandalism on main page/ its sections/ its constituent images would be literally a "loss of face" to WP. TIA, --Gurubrahma 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RDDV img 047.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RDDV img 047.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

France-related topics notice board
Hey, DM! First off: just wanted to thank you for all the great France-related stuff you do for the wiki, expecially in current events. Second: I just wanted to call your attention to the existence of the France-related topics notice board, which could use some more participants of your caliber (if you feel the inclination or need and have the time). Cheers- NYArtsnWords 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Front National
I notice that you've recently edited the Front National article and have an interest in French politics. So would you care to interject your opinion into the current talk page debate about whether the FN is far right or not? After this fuss is over, it would be very helpful if you could bring some of French article into English Wikipedia, as it is much more comprehensive. I could theoretically do it myself, but my vocabulary is limited, and I don't want to be flipping through a dictionary all day :-) Cheers. -- WGee 02:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Left" and "right"
You wrote "Left" and "right" are relative terms pertaining to a political situation (in time and space). If these are relative terms, how can one use them without resorting to WP:OR and WP:POV? Where does one draw the line between "Extreme Left" and "Left," between "Left" and "Right," between "Right" and "Extreme Right"? Newspapers never tell where this line is... Intangible 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of your edits to the NPOV Tutorial
David,

In April 2005, added language to the NPOV tutorial discussing how expertise should contribute to balance on scientific vs religious/moral/political matters. On the page Opus Dei, there is an on-going NPOV dispute which has come to hinge entirely upon the correct interpetation of your additions. One faction feels that the Opus Dei article should favor supporters of that religious group over its critics, since they feel that those who have studied the religion and have the greatest expertise on the religion have generally treated the group very favorably. Others feel that the matter is one of morality and religion, and in such cases, there are no experts, and we should treat both sides in a controversial religious debate equally. The meaning of your additions to the tutorial have been a central part in the debated.

Ultimately, these specific issues on the Opus Dei page will be resolved in Mediation which is set to begin soon. However, I would also like to get to the bottom of what, in your eyes, is the correct interpretation of what you wrote, and to try to clarify the tutorial so other people won't have to have the same debate. Before I would do that however, I would want to be sure we have a good understanding of what you mean when you wrote the section.

Would you care to lend your opinion to the debate? Is it apropriate to create an article which favors one side of a religious debate if you believe your side's authors have greater expertise?--Alecmconroy 11:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose arbitration to block Intangible
If interested, leave comments here.--Cberlet 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences
Hi, is this category intended for the living members, or for all members living and dead?--Peta 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, did you have something in mind when you made it? I think it'd be best if it covered all members - like the Nobel cats - I can add something to the category page to clarify, since currently it is totally ambiguous.--Peta 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tour Eiffel
David,

You have been reccommended as an expert in French legal affairs - could you be so kind as to help us conclude a copyright question concerning an image published on Wiki?

As I'm sure you know, the company operating the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE, has placed a copyright claim on any image of the tower's lighting. My foremost question is: does this claim have any effect under US law? My second question concerns also the validity/enforcement of this copyright in France itself, as recent cour de cassation rulings seem to undermine it, but as a layman I am unable to conclude anything from this that would dictate a proper course to follow. Please find this discussion in some detail here and here, and the image in question.

Thank you very much. ThePromenader 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Group POV pushing
Hi, David. I happened to run across your subpage on User:David.Monniaux/group POV pushing and wondered if you feel it applies to ad hoc cliques as well. I refer to groups of apparently unrelated contributors who do to articles covering a broad topic what Group Members to articles on their own group. I refer specifically to the orgin of life debate, or theglobal warming/climate change series.

You might want to see my comments at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute. --Uncle Ed 13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your warning to User:CQJ
Hm. Could you point out what you're referring to here, because I'm pretty sure that I can't find that in my contribs log, nor would I remove any date from any article about semi-famous people - that's not within my scope, unless it was an RC revert, which I haven't done in like, oh, three days. CQJ 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay Mariotti
Why the quick delete on this entry? The latest posting had no fewer than 11 references, and at the very least his biographical information should have stayed as he's a notable figure in the media world and the Chicago sports scene. Shermerville 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mariotti
Why not just remove what you believed to be libelous? Being a public figure, Mariotti wouldn't be able to bring a libel case against Wikipedia successfully anyway. At the very least, his biographical information, the controversy that ignited from his feud with Ozzie Guillen, and the number of his colleagues who are not shy expressing their dislike of Mariotti (including his public fights with colleague Rick Telander) should be included in any type of bio of him. Shermerville 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
I resent that. I used to be edit some entries under IP address 206.165.176.138, (NOT as a vandal, mind you), and I opened an account only after my IP changed. As far as "libel," I have a strong grasp of the law as interpreted in Illinois and the United States. Shermerville

McCaw Pic
Was snapped at the SB County Bowl.

snug 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User page and talk page of Davidgothberg
Why did you delete a whole bunch of paragraphs from my user page and my talk page regarding a vandal I am watching? If you had anything to object against those paragraphs you should have discussed it, not just went ahead and deleted a lot of text from my userpage and from my talkpage.

Most of us here on Wikpedia find it really rude if you delete stuff from another user's user page. And discussions on a user's talkpage normally are not deleted but ARCHIVED when they get old. But that discussion you deleted is in no way old.

An interesting thing is that that very discussion has several times been deleted by that vandal himself. Which makes it look very much like you are just a sockpuppet for that vandal. --David Göthberg 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Evert Hopman
Did you delete this article? I and others were working on it. If you got complaints from a number of users, please check Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse to see if they may have been fraudulent.

Please restore the article and AfD it if you think it should be deleted. The last I rememeber, somebody had added a bunch of unverifiable info to what had been until then mostly a verifiable article. The subject is a notable Pagan and Druid author with multiple books. I have at least one of them myself from at least ten or more years ago, maybe more.

I couldn't do much about it last week as I was going on holiday, but when I tried to followup today, it was gone. I don't think it had so much as a prod tag on Thursday. -999 (Talk) 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All the information I put into the article would have been sourced from author bios or author web page. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Mattisse or her socks (who seems to have a vendetta against pagan authors) would do such a thing to cause the article to be deleted. I seem to recall removing some stuff last week that was dubious, but don't remember who added it. I think the subject may have added a large amount of unveriable information, but I may have been wrong and it could have been someone else. In any case, I didn't start the article and was simply trying to verify/cite and improve it, IIRC. -999 (Talk) 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I am familiar with [{WP:BLP]] and always remove uncited negative info from biographies of living people when I run across it. Are the complaints to be found somewhere on WP? If so, can you point me to them? I'm simply curious about what the problem was. -999 (Talk) 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way you could either email me the latest version of the article or put it in my user space so that I can start a new one from scratch? Then it would have no objectionable info in the history and I could have the user space one speedied when I no longer need it. That seems best given that there were complaints... -999 (Talk) 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've recreated the article and made sure that every piece of information is in the sources cited, and put the BLP tag on the talk page along with a note explicitly asking people not to add any information without citations and a statement to the subject that of course the editors of the article are willing to address any concerns that she might have. Also, I will keep the article on my watchlist indefinitely and remove any dubious additions ASAP (however, I only edit M-F 9-5, so I hope other editors will add the article to their watchlists as well. -999 (Talk) 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding information removal in Neil Gaiman article
I had previously made the correction (and added reference) to Mr. Gaiman living in Menomonie, Wisconsin, which is about an hour away from the Twin Cities (I find it funny that people keep saying Minneapolis, when St. Paul is actually closer to him). I've always suspected he says that he's living in the Twin Cities areas to the press just because, frankly, no one outside of Northwestern Wisconsin probably knows where the heck Menomonie is. Now, the reason for the deletion was listed as it was a complaint regarding personal information - but the citation was USA TODAY for pete's sake. I don't beleive that a citation in a NATIONAL NEWSPAPER constitutes revealing personal information. In fact, the reason why I even know that he lives there was from Newspaper articles. Traegorn 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Contact us tree
Might want to take a look at the relevant MediaWiki pages, too. The AOL scenario was covered there at one time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg
Hi, you deleted this image and gave the reason, "not PD outside of the US and may possibly be not PD inside the US because it was originally published outside of the US". Where exactly did this discussion take place? This was a featured picture and you left a bunch of red links, including in articles. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * David is part right; the image is not public domain in Europe because it is 70 years pma. However, since this image was published in 1906, it meets the cut-off date for it being public domain in the United States according to . So it is PD-US, but not PD-EU. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What's PD in Europe got to do with it? The servers are in the US and liable to US copyright law, and it is PD according to US law. Please undo this deletion asap. Presumably something doesn't get to be a featured picture without someone checking on its copyright. Tyrenius 07:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Every legal discussion I've seen on wiki has always referred to US law. Are you saying that it was an instruction from the Foundation to delete this image &mdash; in which case obviously I concur &mdash; or merely that you were given the information that a complaint had been received, but it was left to your discretion as to how to respond to this complaint? If it is the former, then it has wide implications, and, in that case, do you know if it is anywhere in policy/guidelines or has been brought to the attention of the appropriate editors/admins working on copyright issues? Tyrenius 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee
Thank you for blocking Rookiee. You should know, however, that I have recently added material to What Wikipedia is not which you may have relied on. I believe it is sound, but it is new. Please email Jimbo if you have questions regarding the general question. Fred Bauder 12:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was justified to block Rookiee. If he only added a link to his home page that should be allowed. Take a look at WP:USER: "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should refrain from surrounding it with any promotional language."
 * So, if he only added a link, it should have been allowed. The rest of his user page had been edited by others before, especially for it not to be promotional. So as the text on his user page was not promotional, a link should have been allowed.
 * Or is it that only pedophiles are not allowed to have links to their homepages? Then you should put up a list of groups of people who don't have this right on your rules pages. Either that or generally disallow having a link to a personal home page for everyone.
 * The easiest way would be to just unblock Rookiee. Directly blocking someone instead of discussing the issue with the person does not appear to be very reasonable anyway.
 * I hope you will take these comments into considerations, because WP:USER specifically states that users may have a link to their home page on their user page.
 * At the moment this looks like a very reactionary act of Wikipedia to me, Rookiee being blocked shortly after Perverted-Justice began attacking him.--Greeny6000 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ironically you have a link to your home page on your user page yourself, Mr. Monniaux...
 * --Greeny6000 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This block of Rookiee is inappropriate. He removed every link from his userpage to any other site, and replacd them with links within Wikipedia.  A link to ones homepage is hardly a use of Wikipedia for "advocacy."  This looks like Wikipedia caved to the Perverted-Justice vigilantes, and is engaging in pedo-bashing.  Blocking further edits to Rookiee's talk page looks a lot like an attempt to quash further discussion.  There was no vandalism on the page which merited this under Wikipedia's vandalism policy.
 * Now every time some pressure group doesn't like something on Wikipedia, they will think they can just post a web page denouncing Wikipedia as some invented threat to public safety, and Wikipedia will cave. Hermitian 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When Rookiee was banned by an admin with the excuse of "pedophile trolling" during the controversy over the Justin Berry article, there was extensive discussion at that time, and consensus was reached that banning people from editing Wikipedia because of their sexuality was inappropriate, and his ban was revoked. Rookiee's user page wasn't even an issue during that discussion, and I don't recall anyone having problems with it. Now, coincidentally with an attack on Rookiee by the vigilantes at Perverted-Justice, a standard of "advocacy" is being employed which doesn't even permit him a link to his home page, unannotated by any comments.

Rookiee doesn't advocate breaking any laws. It is unacceptable that he cannot identify himself as a boylover on Wikipedia. Saying that he's a boylover isn't advocating anything. It's simply stating how he self-identifies sexually. I would think the vigilantes would be overjoyed if all the boylovers on Wikipedia announced themselves, and their edits to articles could be associated with them. This ban makes no sense. The pretense for it is being fabricated from whole cloth on the fly, and the whole thing has been previously discussed to death, and a different conclusion reached. Rookiee needs to be unbanned immediately. Hermitian 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. He was warned in the strongest possible terms that continuing to promote pedophilia on his user page was unacceptable. He did respond to email, but did not modify his user page. I would let Jimbo reinstate him after he straightens things out. Fred Bauder 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the child sex cranks characterize any mention of pedophilia in a non-pejorative sense as "promoting pedophilia." Nothing Rookiee did comes close to promoting anything.  This is simply an attempt to silence one side of an issue about which multiple views exist, rather than discussing it.  This is a shameful moment for Wikipedia.  We live in a world where no researcher can write a scholarly paper criticial of sex abuse hysteria without being characterized as a "pedophile" or "pedophile apologist," where no sex law can be criticized as overly harsh without accusations of some "pedophile agenda," where no popular book challenging popular misconceptions about the sexuality of minors can be published without the publisher being threatened.  Such a mentality is hardly encyclopedic, and Wikipedia should not be bowing to it.  Hermitian 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no question of 'bowing' to anything here. Wikipedia user pages exist to benefit the encyclopaedia. Rookiee's userpage did not benefit the encyclopaedia. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as Jimbo says, things that are true, but which are believed by only a small minority, do not belong on Wikipedia. I like to call this the "Oprah Effect." Hermitian 07:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The vigilante group Perverted Justice is now claiming Rookiee's removal from Wikipedia as a great victory in their grand plan to deny "pedophiles" any visibility on the Net. Good Work guys.  Wikipedia continues to invent new reasons for me to be ashamed of it.  Hermitian 13:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about the block aside, Rookiee's talk page is presently protected on a vandalized version. The first heading is presently full of homerow-pounding type vandalism, which was missed when Doc attempted to revert it earlier. That first topic section should read like the version here. Why was his talk page protected to begin with? --tjstrf 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of Chilwell School
If I might, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your deletion of Chilwell School. I've helped clean it up in the past, and part of that article was merged from an AfD (ie, the material was kept by merge). I've had that article on my watch list, and unless I missed it, I didn't see a prod or an AfD. As secondary schools are generally considered notable around here, I'd like to request that it be restored and at least run through the AfD process. Thanks! Akradecki 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)