User talk:David Gerard/archive 10

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi David Gerard,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey kid, wanna be a press volunteer?
I added a note to my SOPA blackout post-mortem blog post. As with most jobs on Wikipedia, the way to get the job is to do it.


 * If you’re an experienced UK Wikipedian who thinks they could acquit themselves reasonably well and have no problem with being a very minor public figure, please make yourself known on the wikimediauk-l mailing list and/or local meetups and you may get lined up for next time stuff explodes, the press want a random Wikipedian, etc. And feel free to casually talk to your local media about Wikipedia as the occasion arises.

That last is a very good way. - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You still around?
Just poking around the place since the SOPA/PIPA craziness. Just saying hi to a few random people that I remember from years past. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 20:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I edit here and there :-) Tend not to bother with en:wp policy pages - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably for the best. I think I realized that when I was spending more time on the wp pages more than on articles, that was time to take a huge step back. Drop me a line sometime at my email. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield, FRCS?
I was just following up on the thread at Talk:Andrew Wakefield&mdash;I was wondering if you had heard back from the RCS about whether or not Wakefield was still entitled to use the FRCS postnominal. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently not since July 1996, when he stopped paying his membership. Someone else on RationalWiki also asked - the term "FRCS" is not legally protected in the UK, though to use it to make money would arguably be fraud. Of course, RW allows that sort of original research and WP doesn't. The RCS hasn't issued any sort of public statement as yet - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Turing completeness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turing equivalence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear David,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

87.117.192.0/19 rangeblock affecting 87.117.208.14


This IP has requested an unblock. There does appear to be a subrange 87.117.208.0/24 registered to Rapidswitch. Thoughts? --Chris (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a BT home IP. It resolves to uk2.mrgigabit.com - http://mrgigabit.com/ . Possibly the user has a proxy set without realising it. I did a pile of rangeblocks of ISP ranges that were hosting open proxies, but there are those who prefer using their personal server to post from, so have tended to unblock an IP at a time - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dirtgirlworld for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dirtgirlworld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dirtgirlworld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. VegetaSaiyan...going Super Saiyan 5! (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you place a bunch of possible-source links at the top of an AFD, it helps your next run at admin to bother following them yourself - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ain Soph (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ain Soph (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ain Soph (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. When you recently edited Denton Welch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins, radio presenter
David, Skyring here, and I've got something that's threatening to blow up. Jim Hawkins, a presenter with BBC Radio Shropshire, award-winner, loved for years and extremely popular in the community, is claiming to be bullied by Wikipedia over his article, which I initiated and expanded some years back. Apparently he has personal enemies who have put incorrect information in, and while now the article appears well-sourced, he's still complaining. Someone wants to include his full birthdate based on tweets, and there's some sort of ongoing campaign. Jim has been running his own campaign on his radio show, and he's whaling into Wikipedia. (Program of 20 Mar 2012, starting about twenty-four minutes in on BBC iPlayer, though he leads into it with some talk on cyberbullying.) With some justification. I think Jimbo had Jim in mind here. Anyway, keep your ears open for rumblings from Shrewsbury. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About to go to sleep (it's midnight here), but I've flagged it on WP:BLPN for attention - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David! His whole program seems to have been devoted to poor behaviour on the internet, with his own experience as an example, and I really feel for him. --Pete (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

D'ya suppose it was wise to describe Hawkins as "abusive" after trying to offer him reassurance? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was accurate when his response, and broadcast, was abusive - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Accurate or not -- was it wise? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly not. I shall endeavour to forget his existence - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Superfund" origin
Saw your question over its talk page. My understanding is that the funding collected under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was deemed the "superfund" because the idea was that these new funds would pay for environmental clean up in situations where no responsible party could be found to do the clean up. "Superfund to the rescue," if you will. For example, perhaps an abandoned land fill with lots of industrial waste from many sources, no operator to be found, and maybe all the records destroyed. At the time of the initial legislation, most stake holders thought that Superfund paid clean ups would be the norm. In practice, three decades later, many (most?) clean ups are actually paid for by "responsible" parties. I would imagine EPA's history office would have some source material documenting this. This is a personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of my employer, USEPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.47.49.150 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Britannica notice
Thanks The past 24 hours has been a whirlwind. I've contacted Ted from Britannica and I'll let you know if anything comes of it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BBC journalist editing his own Wikipedia biography, and legal threats from BBC IP addresses
You were actually the first person that I thought of, but I had to check whether you were still active in Wikimedia U.K. and the Communications committee. I've given Jimbo a heads up, for obvious reasons, and because of past experience. This is yours. More on this at the BLP noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales

Non-free rationale for File:The aints slsq very live cover.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The aints slsq very live cover.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you can tell that one's been there for years - it's on the article for the band, not for the album. Now killing it myself - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

CIPR
Hi David. I sent a LinkedIn invitation after watching your interview with CIPR. My clients often choose to write their own controversies due to my counsel for the reasons you outlined in the interview. Overall I thought it was very fair and I was blown away by how closely aligned your advice is with my approach to things. This is me. I just thought I would introduce myself on Wikipedia too.

I also made some substantial edits to the CIPR guidance and would be interested in what you think. Primarily I wanted to cut down on all the POV, editorializing, and debate so we could dive right into the practical guidance. To me it was very wordy and disoriented as you indicated in the interview. User:King4057 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd think Wikipedians were given to instruction creep or something ... Are you on the CREWE Group on Facebook? If not you should be - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. My work is more aligned with CIPR's direction. John Cass threatened to ban me from CREWE ages ago and I left.


 * RE instruction creep, I've been doing what I can to contribute there. Including large contributions to a new essay, some proposed clarifications on the COI guideline, improving the CIPR document, etc. I've mentioned a few times the need for a task force to try to consolidate and improve COI instructions, to eliminate contradictions and confusion. The ArbCom suggestion for an RFC seems to confirm a need to improve clarity.


 * For example, I'm stunned it took me four years to learn about the Bright Line and how to follow it. One area Wikipedia can improve is by providing better instructions. I can be an asset here by helping write it in a language marketing people understand, instead of Wiki-speak.


 * steps off soap box :-D User:King4057 18:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He threatened to ban you? I'll just ... boggle here for a bit. Particularly given the welcome mat laid out for the trolls (who are also allowed to freely lavish the group with profanity and insults, when saying "shit" while disagreeing with John gets your comment deleted). I've been trying hard to actually be helpful there, even when arguing in contortions with the professionally hard of thinking. It's hard to understand what some of them think they'll achieve - they seem to think that the usual result of arguing on the Internet with thousands of stroppy nerds won't happen to them. I'd really rather PR disasters involving Wikipedia didn't happen. Sigh. ASSUME GOOD FAITH! - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's just a Facebook group. So it's difficult to make any generalizations about it or its members as a whole. In any case though, I think what we can and should do is provide better instructions, both for COIs and for less experienced volunteers on how to collaborate with COIs. If you have an interest in providing feedback to the essay, CIPR instructions, COI guideline, etc., they all need more participation. Of course, essays are easy to write among a small group of editors and I think adequately demonstrate different POVs well, but the COI guideline needs a lot of clarity improvements and is all most companies will read. I would think the consensus process would make meaningful improvements very difficult. I'd be curious on your thoughts as to the best approach to improve instructions.  User:King4057 20:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the general case, WP:PRAC (which I worked on for months as a carefully-crafted memetic bomb against excess process ... so of course it sank without trace). tl;dr instructions are useless to restrain the clueless or malicious, as the clueless won't understand and the malicious don't care. For corporate representatives, the Skinner box approach seems to actually work: if you don't know what a COI is you're too thick to edit, and the media and public do know and crucify PRs and clients who edit with one, even when it's arguably unfair to do so, so don't do that. It's possible PRs will be able to turn actual public opinion around to it being just fine for PRs to edit Wikipedia, in which case Wikipedians will actually have to think about the issue more. But I'd suggest guidelines on Wikipedia are at present excess detail and will actually mislead PRs into thinking they're how to be safe, when actually the press will still crucify them - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that the media often doesn't have the expertise to know better. They crucified Newt Gingrich for his Talk page contributions, but Bell Pottinger did a good spin job making it sound like their obviously unethical edits were actually merely caused by Wikipedia's confusing processes. Explaining your "dark arts" makes it pretty clear what your intentions were. I think the case of Gingrich is proof that - though using the Talk page is what's best for Wikipedia - disclosure can also make it easier for the media to senselessly attack your contributions. They are trained through repetition to cover the issue in this light. They might have a more balanced perspective if they talked to veteran editors before writing the story. I also note for example that almost all of the CREWE media coverage doesn't have any representation of Wikipedia's perspective.
 * But anyways. I also think a lot of this is a private-sector solution. In any other subject of marketing, their are vendors like me with something to sell and expertise to share on the subject. Even if we improve the instructions, how many companies (the good-faith ones) would spend 100 hours earning their Wikipedia stripes and understanding all these instructions? It's our burden to learn how Wikipedia works and prove we can bring value to it. That means we have to properly prioritize Wikipedia and invest the time to provide Wikipedia with a professional-quality collaboration. User:King4057 22:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just ranting now btw. There's nothing particularly productive in my comment. :-D User:King4057 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a skinner box though? User:King4057 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a quite popular online encyclopedia I could look it up in if only I could remember the name ... ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, so we're all just rats to you ;-) It's a good analogy. I guess frequency and consistency are areas where Wikipedia would differ, but not much we could do about that. User:King4057 13:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I submitted it as a SignPost story and they're going to cover it tomorrow. Should be interesting to get the community's response. User:King4057 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * After how I bitched about coverage of PR editing before, I decided against submitting it myself, let someone else decide if it was news :-) Blog post - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I included your skinner box analogy over here in a draft op-ed I'm writing for the Signpost on COI. I'd be interested in knowing if you think I nailed it right. User:King4057 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the Wikipedia community at all - I meant the media and public reaction. Do this bad thing and the media zaps you - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awww - good thing I asked. User:King4057 02:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Fame and fortune
Heh. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers, was waiting for this one to come out. "Volunteer media coordinator"? That's a new one. I got "Wikipedia editor for the UK" once. (MY SOCKPUPPET ARMY IS apparently LEGION.) The last sentence is accurate, though they didn't put the end bit "though we can't guarantee any particular response" - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was chuffed to see it. David, we've not really interacted, but nevertheless, always good to see a fellow Wikipedian, a long-term one, out there on the BBC website!  :) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought the whole thing was silly - using edit counts as predictors for the VP. The media will do anything for a headline. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PR op-ed
I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, probably more than 800 words would permit. The main problem is that I don't know exactly whose views you want to represent. The Wikipedia community is itself fractured as you know, and I don't know if you want to be a counterpoint to Gomes or just a voice for the community. There is of course the policy consensus, which strongly discourages direct editing of anything but uncontroversial material by editors with a COI. Then there is Wales' brightline proposal for no direct editing. Then there are efforts like Wikiproject Cooperation which are seeking to educate and on-board well-meaning paid editors. There have been outreach efforts through WP:PSCOI as well as through coordination with PR led Facebook Group CREWE. There are also largely skeptical responses such as COI/N and WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch. A new effort you might not have heard of is my recent proposal for a COI+ agreements project, which gives paid editors an optional protocol to follow which is more clearly defined than WP:COI but less restrictive than 'Brightline'. I'm currently in talks with major PR industry groups to endorse/promote that idea, but it's still in the preliminary stage.

So, I think the community is split on the matter. Some editors think that COI editors can never be constructive contributors, while others feel that COI is irrelevant and only ones neutral output matters. One thing is clear: paid editors are not going anywhere. They are clamoring for a more active role in the community, and the community has now twice (2009 and 2012 RfC) failed to form a consensus to ban paid editing. There is an approach to 'learn more about the debate', through efforts such as the Does Wikipedia Pay? Signpost series. There is a growing core of best-practices COI editors who practice disclosure and content review and policy-respect. We haven't had a major COI scandal in the media for a few months, although the 2005-2012 history is littered with them. There is a growing consensus that at least COI editors can play a constructive role on the talk pages of articles. But COI groups have argued that Talk pages and other forums are not responsive enough. So it's a complicated balance--the more that we keep paid editors off of the actual article pages, the stronger claim they have that we must improve our response times elsewhere. That was the main thrust of WP:COI+, that we could form some type of mutual agreement to split the difference and bridge the gap.

Let me know if you have any more specific questions I can answer, or if you would like to put up a draft in userspace for some collaborative feedback. I'm glad you have a chance to speak on this matter and am sure you'll do a fair job representing the import and complexity of the subject. Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See my note about PRpedia!
David,

Sorry I haven't run into you before. But I did see the webcast and thought it was great. I did see some of your comments at the Village Pump and have responded. See, in particular, some ramblings of mine at Village_pump_(miscellaneous) on PRpedia.

All the best,

Smallbones (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IABC
Hi David. The folks at IABC seemed wary of us collaborating too closely, because they don't want us influencing each other to the point that our articles are the same. However, I'm going to give it a run through in an effort to improve general flow and editorial without changing your intended meaning. User:King4057 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks :-) I reserve the right to change any given word back ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, I think there's still time before you go to print... I like your article generally. It has a nice tone, doesn't oversimplify, and still provides clear guidance and background. Nice job on that! My main suggestion is that you rework a bit how you introduce conflict of interest. Specifically, "appropriate etiquette for a conflict of interest" is a bit vague for my taste. I would prefer something like, "appropriate etiquette for dealing with their conflict of interest." It's also somewhat undesirable that you mention conflict of interest so early on but then actually define it rather late in the article. If possible, I'd make a brief effort to define the term as or near after you introduce it, just so readers aren't proceeding without a clear idea what you are referring to. Overall, very nice work and I look forward to reading Mr. Gomes' opposing piece. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That was King4057's, but I have no problem with introducing it without a definition - since the point is that it's a phrase in English, not a Wikipedia jargon term, and anyone who thinks they need definition of it as a jargon term is not smart enough for this ride - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ocaasi both on his criticisms of my choice of language and on the need to explain what a conflict of interest is. I am constantly reminded of how little people know about Wikipedia. PR professionals are familiar with conflict of interest from the perspective that a single PR agency can't support competing clients, because they handle confidential information - or that similar circumstances occur for lawyers, which is referred to as a conflict of interest - but the use of it on Wikipedia is a bit different. When I told someone that COOP was started to help "paid editors" the PR team was asking if COOP costs money and what a paid editor is. That's the level the PR industry is at, because it's where most of the public is and we (PR) haven't made an effort to be more informed than the public.


 * But what I identified as a larger issue with the article itself - and not to be overly critical as I tend to be - is that your approach seems to be as if it was a Wikipedia essay, rather than an article for the media. My read of the request is that it's almost like an opinion piece. The media often hosts debates where they offer opinions from both sides of the issue and it seems like they are leading you towards debating the issue of direct editing with Phil. I don't know if you want to accept that mold, which pits you against the debating prowess and resources of one of the world's largest PR agencies, but I would suggest striving to make it appropriate for the media, rather than instructions. User:King4057 07:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mm. It strikes me, however, that providing "let's you and him fight" fodder doesn't actually advance our interests in any way. It could probably do with more opinion, though. As for special meanings of "conflict of interest", I can only go so far in teaching them English as the rest of the world speaks it. I'll beat on it some more today - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like they also left it open to your creative direction. I enjoy debating with editors with varying viewpoints and I've learned a lot even from editors that oppose paid COI editing. However, I wouldn't want to engage in debate in this situation either. It shouldn't be PR vs Wikipedia community, rather than PR learning from the community. User:King4057 15:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We should add sub-sections as well with distinct topic areas to give the article structure. User:King4057 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having an annoyingly busy day at work today, I think I'll be putting in last tweaks and then submitting it (today is deadline) - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ideas welcome quickly for that last subheading - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been sent off, for better or worse! Apparently the issue will be out first week Sept - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. When you recently edited Australiana (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts of Anime News Network's Encyclopedia references
I noticed that you reverted my remove of several references to Anime News Network's Encyclopedia. I don't know if you knew this, but while the rest of Anime News Network is considered reliable, the encyclopedia section is based on user generated content and would not be a reliable source. This has been discussed several time at both WP:ANIME and WP:RSN. For the links and further details about using Anime News Network as a source, see its entry at WP:A&M/ORS. Next time you do a rollback like that, I would like to know the reasons for it, either on my talk page or in an edit summary explaining your reasons. —Farix (t &#124; c) 09:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference-removing is bad, and a user-generated source is not worse than no source. You really can't do that sort of thing by bot in any sensible manner - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does it state that you cannot remove unreliable sources? And it wasn't done by a bot. I reviewed each edit to make sure that it only removed the references, fixing other problems as I came across them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 09:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The world does not divide neatly into utterly reliable and utterly unreliable sources. Did you read each article for whether the link in question was better or worse than nothing? You seem to be saying that you did not - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the stuff that was linked was just referencing trivial details, such as author, release dates, voice actors, etc. But I don't see how keeping references to a known unreliable source is an improvement. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm brining the issue up at WT:ANIME for wider discussion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Hi David. Would love your feedback on a couple COI-related projects I have contributed to.A template and better request edit process This is 4057, I changed my username. Corporate Minion 05:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited From Here to Eternity (Giorgio Moroder album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trans-Europe Express (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

CfDs
Please explain You commented "spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria" several times over at CfD. In what way are these nominations false or not genuine? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say or mean that they were false or not genuine; I mean that they were not good quality nominations and appear to be a misreading of the guideline - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Spurious That's not really what the word means. How are the guidelines being misread... when should an eponymous category be created for a musical group? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply bad faith on your part. But the discussion seems to show the proposed deletions aren't supported - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chakk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabaret Voltaire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ihcoyc/The_problem_of_anti-supernatural_bias
I know that you have strong opinions on That Sort of Thing, and as such your take may be very different from my own. That's why I'm asking you to take the trouble to weigh in on this little mess, and if this is an improper solicitation of opinion so be it. (Damn, I'm full of myself tonight.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure I disagree with the essay, but I'll have to think further. Nevertheless, the deletion nomination is utterly specious - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate your thoughts on why the essay is wrong. My interest in the subject at issue is mostly my bibliophilia at work.  As the project has matured and referencing standards have improved, my choice of subjects to build up has become more selective.  I've collected a number of historically significant or fairly critical manuals of astrology and occultism because all the charts and sigils are picturesque and pretty.  It grieves me that there's always some reason that they can't be used to improve Wikipedia articles on the subjects, and I don't understand why. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo of someone other than Michael G. Wilson
That alleged photo of Michael G. Wilson you deleted in 2007 got back into the article in 2009. This edit. Before I delete it, I want to confirm that it is not Wilson. It certainly doesn't look like him. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the case at all ... I see it's all over other Wikipedias too. Frankly it needs to be voted for deletion on Commons - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You had started a thread on the Michael Wilson talk page here. I agree it should be deleted. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominated - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request you take a second look
You might want to take a second look at how you added yourself to WP:AMDB. I personally feel it violates several core policies, incuding WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Thanks! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, I've reviewed it and I'm quite happy with it. Have a great day! - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ouchie - that's a tough one with a disclosed identity. Corporate 20:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My feelings on the matter are quite strong, I know the sort of people that page is talking about - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had an issue with off-wiki harassment a while back, part of the reason I moved to an anonymous username. It's a startling experience - just makes you wonder what motivates people to behave like that. Corporate 22:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia
FYI please see this talk section NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Salvation! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Cabaret Voltaire


 * The Voice of America (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Outer Limits

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your blog
I like your blog btw - the court ruling does make it simpler, not more complex. I don't think the PR media necessarily reflects the views of the PR community. Lots of PR people I talk to say "well, we're going to follow the rules, whatever they are, duh." But it's disappointing that trade associations that are suppose to stand for ethics would defend someone rather than ridicule them when they do something overtly wrong. It's one thing to defend someone who made something we could interpret as an attempted factual correction - another to defend censorship of properly cited material. (end rant) Corporate 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special Beat Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Gilmour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the thanks and heads up. and thanks for working on the openoffice article, youve improved it alot.