User talk:GDonato/Archive06

Thanks
The semi-protect for Talk:Bengalia is appreciated, though I can guarantee you will need to keep reinstating it in perpetuity; this is an editor who has NOTHING ELSE to do in his life but produce rants, be they in his own privately-printed "scientific journal" or to WP. He will never, ever stop trying to post here, and cannot be reasoned with. He sends me nasty e-mails every day, too. I'm betting it's less than a week before he starts up again either on this talk page, or elsewhere. I hope you won't mind if I come back to you when that happens. I apologize in advance. Dyanega (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do come back if the trouble starts again; the protection was (I think accidentally) shortened to the 2nd so I've put it back to the 19th of February as it was. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's moved to another talk page, one of the three he posts to: Talk:Blow-fly. If that one is blocked, he will certainly move elsewhere (probably Talk:Cluster fly is next on his list) - like I said, he has nothing else to do. This game of "whack-a-mole" will go on indefinitely, I'm afraid. Dyanega (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Food Safety Promotion Board
Hi G Donato, Yesterday you deleted the page I created on SafeFood. As I mentioned in my hang on, the problem with it is its functions are described by law, (the British Irish Agreement Act 1999). This makes it difficult to have a wiki page about SafeFood that does not mention what it is legally required to do, since repeating its legal functions apparently violate your copyright rules. How do you overcome this with other wiki pages that mention state bodies? I notice for example for the page for the BBC it copies word for word the BBC's Charter in relation to the definition of public services, but if this is the case how does it not fall foul of crown or BBC copyright? I think it is important in cases such as government agencies and bodies to state their functions as described by law and not in some interpreted form, which in this case is being forced up the SafeFood article because they mention their legal duties/functions on their website. How can this be best overcome while staying within wikirules? A complete extract/quote from the Act (which again of course would have the exact wording of the SafeFood page since it is the Act that SafeFood are quoting in the first place)? Your direction in this matter would be helpful. Rgds CP Harkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac h (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution to that problem is probably to explicitly state that you are quoting from the site. You could possibly use a :


 * something like this

to solve the problem. Make sure you include the source :) Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) on articles listed in Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed (seconded PRODs) ... I selected articles at random, tagged the talk pages, and WP:CANVASed the editors involved ... some of them have already been deleted (or would be Real Soon Now when the PROD expired), so the "reference" article I pointed to in the messages may have been about a subject in which the editor has no particular interest ... My Bad!

For further testing, I'll just flag the talk pages, but won't "ping" the editors ... if it's on their Watchlists, that should be sufficient to get their attention, and hopefully they will respond if interested. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't worry about it. An editor had expressed a concern and I did concur with them that it was unnecessary to continue to post on so many user talk pages. Happy editing and good luck with the template, GDonato (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:CornerstoneFestival2007 mainstage.jpg
Please explain what license issues are present. The original source was flickr, it is credited correctly on commons, while it is not mentioned on your local copy. Codeispoetry (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for the clarification, I checked the image on flickr. I wonder why he didn't have the local copy properly tagged. Image licensing must be 100% certain before the file can be deleted. GDonato (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm doing NowCommons work on de, It's a pain in the ass ;-) Well, somehow I like it. Keep up your work! Codeispoetry (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Christina Album Speedy Delete explanation
I am nominating this for speedy delete because it is a re-creation of New Christina Milian album, also by this user, which was deleted as the result of an AfD. If this is still inappropriate, please remove the tag and let me know. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now deleted. GDonato (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - sorry I didn't get the explanation up quickly enough Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems, GDonato (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrequest
I accidentally requested the following page to be deleted:


 * User page design center/Menus and subpages/Menu12

Please undelete it.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ GDonato (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alex Salmond.jpg
That assertion simply comes from selecting the one legit upload option on this page. You will note that say Image:Albus, Jim in 2001.jpg makes exactly the same assertion but if you see the uploader's talk page it isn't true. Due the the way the assertion is made it is largely valueless as an assertion that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder.Genisock2 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The upload form in question states own work only. Therefore, the usage of the form means the uploader is the copyright holder (unless they lie). Instructions are also provided for other options. In the meantime I think we have to WP:AGF that uploader is the copyright holder, I do not believe WP:PUI applies. GDonato (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the form states people lie. In particular they lie to machines. A lot of experience teaches us that staments made through that upload form alone cannot be trusted (AGF is not a suicide pact) so unless there is other evidence suggesting that the image is self authored we cannot assume they are. The shear number that come through with viewimages and similar watermarks on them should be enough to make that clear.Genisock2 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most of these cases are inconclusive. Short of asking them to take a picture of themselves taking the picture... ;) No doubt people lie but there is no easy way to prove authorship and we can not delete all images where we are less than 100% sure of the author, there'd be no free ones left! :) GDonato (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are various methods to be more conclusive. For example people may be happy to lie to computers but they will be less happy about lying to you and me. IF we can contact the unloader and they confirm authorship that is generally enough to be reasonably sure.Genisock2 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, I've sent an e-mail, GDonato (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No response, I can't see any other option than AGF if the uploader is uncontactable. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Football box start
Hi there - you made an edit to Template:Football box start, but forgot some -tags around the template documentation (or somethin else happened), causing articles using the articles using this template looking like this: Example. Please fix this, thanks / AB-me ( chit-chat ) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, user unblocks you?
User:In Soviet Union, page watches YOU! would like to be unblocked. Since you blocked him, I figured I'd let you do the talking. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  23:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Username hard block?
I was just wondering why you username hard-blocked. The username doesn't seem to be offensive or abusive.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was fairly clear from the username that this was a sockpuppet. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Barnstar from moved to awards page.
 * What? *blinks* Wow, a not-complaint :O Thanks very much, :) GDonato (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales
I agree there is no pressing need for anyone to edit that page. However, it doesn't look good for Jimbo's page (as founder, chair emeritus, etc.) to be protected. Jimbo has also specifically encouraged people to edit the page. I think the benefits of unprotection far outweigh the negatives at the moment. If the vandal pops up again, the page can simply be re-protected. KnightLago (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on closer inspection (also the expiry used on the talk page), ✅ GDonato (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Geisha Featured Picture
Please refer to my talk page, sir. Thank you for contacting me.ToddLara (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Protectathon
Barnstar from moved to awards page.
 * Heh, at least it helped my WP:ADMINSTATS ;) Thanks, GDonato (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg
An editor has asked for a of Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I understand it has been sorted out, GDonato (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * Wow, 3 in a week! I must be doing something right :) Thanks a lot, GDonato (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

bidding war
who are you? read what was typed on the page. What was typed was racist and meant to be derogatory towards white males. So I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informatron (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why
are you getting in the middle of our private conversation? Do you think you are better than us? --Damifb (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You stated that you planned to ruin the site. Comments on talk pages are for improving, not destroying, Wikipedia. GDonato (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I was wondering what wiki policy you felt you were enforcing by removing this comment? []Hohohahaha (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages of blocked users are temporary and as such the comment would have been removed in due course anyway. Try Special:Emailuser/RachelMarsden to contact her, perhaps? GDonato (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you- you're right I have seen blocked pages wiped before. Thanks.


 * Great suggestion, I emailed her. Hohohahaha (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish she would...
Re this: I wish she would, but she'll probably appeal to gossip sites and tech press instead! The past suggests this, anyway. Happy editing, daveh4h 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy editing to you too, GDonato (talk)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stay off my profile page - from cbean
Hello.

Do NOT visit my personal profile page & make bolded statements & threats.

Look, here's how the dailymotion image situation went.

I did a screen capture.

A screen capture is fair use.

I posted the screen capture.

The screen capture was a reference point and it backed up and documented the claims I made on the dailymotion page. The fair use images backed and and verified that the changes I made were valid and worth keeping.

Now, if someone disputes my changes to the dialymotion page were inaccurate, I can point to the images. But you, in bad faith apparently, try & delete the images, then I have nothing to back up my claim.

This whole web site, wikipedia, is operated in an arcane and stupid way. But the bottom line message for you is this: MY IMAGES WERE NOT DISRUPTIVE. But I can be disruptive if you want. My images were fair use and I stated this. So keep off my profile page with your bolded statements & threats. They will be deleted & they will be ignored.

You are one of the people here sucking energy out of good people who're trying to contribute. You're not welcome on my profile page & any comments made by you there will be deleted.

I've only got one life to live. And it will not be without you & similar people who go around with nothing better to do than threaten people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbean (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello!


Cream (talk) has put a trout your back! The Trout promotes playfulness and hopefully this one has made your day worse. You have no choice but to spread it to other editors! Happy April Fools' Day! Add this {{subst:AprilFoools}} to their talk page with a friendly fish.

User:AkhtaBot
Erm, why are you reverting all of the recent edits by this bot? I would hate to think it's because of some bigoted attitude towards the Arabic language. – PeeJay 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the bot was adding interwiki links to templates, causing those links to be transcluded on any page the template was transcluded on. So the link to ar:Template:Electromagnetism on Template:Electromagnetism would also appear on the actual Electromagnetism article. Furthermore, it was probably unauthorised anyway. GDonato (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice that you decided to re-revert me with the edit summary "rvv". Please revert those edits and WP:AGF. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ones I reverted were included within noinclude tags, so they would not have affected the pages they were transcluded onto. – PeeJay 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please reply on my talk page in the future. Thanks. – PeeJay 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To summarise, I will not be reverting my reverts, but I will apologise for not assuming good faith. :) – PeeJay 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, feel free to revert the ones in . You understand that I did not check every one of its >1000 edits. Generally, I like to continue a thread where it was started. Have a good day, GDonato (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article on PGF
Hey Donato,

You deleted an article I wrote a small amount on a while back about the Portable Graphics Format. I'm not necessarily contesting the deletion, but I wouldn't mind seeing what I posted so I can either (a) write some more so you keep it up, or (b) learn from my mistake and not do so again. I've kind of forgotten what I wrote.

Cheers, Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspr81 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was quite a difficult decision; almost declined the deletion request but essentially the article was missing the main point in the notability guideline which is coverage in independent sources (i.e. include some external links which verify the information you gave and show that the subject of the article is notable). This was the content of the article:

=Portable Graphics Format= From the description of PGF from the main developer site:

PGF is a TeX macro package for generating graphics. It is platform- and format-independent and works together with the mostimportant TeX backend drivers, including pdftex and dvips. It comes with a user-friedly syntax layer called TikZ.

== External links == SourceForce: PGF and TikZ -- Graphic systems for TeX


 * Note the only external link is one to the project itself, no independent links. A Google search may help find these. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll fix that up at some stage. — W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspr81 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2
Hi - just to let you know that following the renamings you carried out, I've protected the redirect remaining at GFDL 1.2, as it's still in high usage. It may be a violation of WP:BEANS, but better safe than sorry! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to check later, GDonato (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)