User talk:GDonato/Archive07

VP/Proposals - Poll
Just an FYI - I split the poll, for readability, and clarity. - jc37 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

creating user boxes
How dou create that user boxes like "this user is a fan of somethin " or where is the list of such things ?--Mazfired (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try WP:UBX, it has both a list and instructions for making a new one. Hope that helps, GDonato (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fail
I was looking at the history of Fish wondering what you were on about :( Martinp23 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:GFDL-1.2
Template:GFDL-1.2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to the Edinburgh Wikimeet
Hi there,

A few of us are planning a wikimeet in Edinburgh and would love to invite you along :-)

Currently, the meetup is planned for Saturday, 7th June starting at around 1pm.

We have a planning and suggestions page located here as well as a space to sign up as an attendee/possible atendee.

Hope to see you there, Astral (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent move of Manchester United
Another one here: Talk:FUCK YOU STUPID CUNT NIGGER WHORE Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, GDonato (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Luc Bourdon
I've unprotected the article because semi-protection seems premature at this point. If you disagree or if there is vandalism, you can go ahead and re-protect it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Upload
I've cleaned up the page the best I can. Please feel free to revert or refine as you see fit.

The Transhumanist 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, GDonato (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reflist Templates
Hi I was wondering if you might be willing to help me with a problem I'm having. I recently installed the same software that Wikipedia uses (MediaWiki), and I don't understand how to get the common templates like etc to work. Could you point me in the right direction?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably asking the wrong person for technical things like that, try the technical village pump or maybe the help desk; there is also a mailing list for MediaWiki, GDonato (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

MFD
Just checking, did you see my edits to BLP Spec Warn after Conti's comment?  MBisanz  talk 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

72.76.78.177
That's good with me. Thanks for letting me know about the other block lengths. Best, Gwernol 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag and note
RE Requests for checkuser/Case/Hisham 5ZX when you act on these, could you tag the user pages and also put a clerk note on the RFCU page so others don't come by wasting time on a case that's already been handled? Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it was necessary to tag the IPs. I responded from an ANI report and not the CU page directly. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why you didn't see the RFCU. Ok. but I think it's best to tag all socks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando
While it isn't terribly important, your closure of this MfD referred to the result as "No Consensus," while I'm pretty confident that, were the MfD to be proposed again, it would snow Keep, and the sequence of votes shows that. The !Delete votes all came in a rush upon nomination, there were six including the nomination. The Delete votes, some of them, seem to have made snap judgments about what was in the file; for example, one referred to it as a "book of grudges," at a time when there were no grudges, by any stretch of the imagination, in the file, and only the simple fact that a user would create a file with the name of the user allowed that projection. The sixth Delete vote was withdrawn when this was explained, and the other original Delete voters, except for one -- someone who has opposed me elsewhere -- didn't participate in further discussion.

Then came seven straight Keep votes. Clearly, once the subject had been discussed, Keep was the conclusion of the community. Further, one basic argument for Delete became moot: applicable guidelines referred, possibly, to pages compiled on users that were not relevant to some specific user behavior process. Since the page was then expanded to add some diffs giving early history of that editor, which was then used for WP:SSP and WP:RFCU -- even though there were still no "grudges" in the file, or attacks -- it would have become a clear violation of policy and precedent to delete the page, and, had Delete been the result, this would have gone to WP:DRV if discussion with the closing admin didn't result in a change. I'd say that Delete wouldn't have had a snowball's chance of being sustained.

So "No Consensus" was an inadequate analysis of the AfD. It became Keep, clearly, plus the arguments clearly indicated Keep. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right: it isn't important but I still feel the complaints regarding WP:STALK had some merit so therefore I closed as "no consensus". If you really strongly object to the "no consensus" close there is Deletion review. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? I'd waste other editor's time on that distinction? No. If I had "strongly objected," I'd have said so, I wouldn't have said "it isn't terribly important." There is some importance, enough to raise it with you. There was no stalking, period. There was the normal watching that we all do of each other, and probably should do more. And then, when strong suspicions had been aroused -- not just by me but by others, at first, then I confirmed that and had a far more specific suspicion -- I created the file and then didn't do anything with it beyond the initial framing -- that it was to be rigorously neutral, and, contrary to what was asserted, comments by other users were not solicited, merely contemplated. If this was improper, I'd prefer to see some specific followup. Absolutely, there was some merit to the stalking issue, and the file might have looked like that to someone who just glanced at it. But ... this opinion vanished, was not asserted again by any new editors. Except for your close. Otherwise, every RfC would be "stalking." And every draft RfC. And every evidence file compiled from reviewing editor history for RfAr. The stalking argument, as I said, had some merit prior to the actual use. That argument became totally moot when the file was used. It is as if you closed an AfD as No Consensus, based on early arguments re lack of sourcing, when during the AfD, the article became sourced and all the votes shifted from Delete to Keep. I'd stand with it: your closure was improper. But moot, which is why no DRV. 'Nuff said? --Abd (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose where we disagree is that you believe that the arguments which were ruled out should not be included at all in the close whereas I think that it was reasonable to summarise those opinions in the close. GDonato (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock decline
Ah, the ol' second chance template. Has any editor actually done all this? :-) Tan      39  17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not see any yet but there's always a first time :) GDonato (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tooltip-search-fulltext
Just informing you, I've made a small change in the wording to this message that you first wrote. Felt it sounded better this way and it matches the tooltip for the searchbox now. Feel free to revert if you object. —[ DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs ] 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the wording I used there was copied from an old interface message that used to provide a duplicate function (I think?) so I didn't actually create the initial wording myself and thus I have no objections, GDonato (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Didnt mean to blank....
I was simply adding some information - I did not intend to blank anything. Please add back my criticism heading, there will be more information to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robshapiro72 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ GDonato (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block on 74.7.3.202
(I put this request on the talk page of the admin who did the original block, but since you seem to be actively working at the moment, i thought i'd request it of you as well).

Concerning User talk:74.7.3.202, I would suggest a longer block than 31 hours; looking back historically, while the user has made some edits that have not been reverted, the IP received a month block in July - a few days after the expiry of which they started receiving warnings again. These warnings culminated in a double block yesterday - and today the user has spent time throwing an editing tantrum on their talk page.

(I tried doing this request through ARV, but the 'helperbot' removed it automatically since the user is currently blocked.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaeler (talk • contribs)
 * I understand your point but this is probably something which is better asked of the blocking admin (apparently the user has made some good edits too). Thank you, GDonato (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove article
Hi, I'm trying to remove my article on Yda Hillis Addis from wikipedia. It seems as though you are reverting my removal... why? it is not vandelism, it is my choice to remove the article. Chaos4tu (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another editor has left you a notice regarding this on your talk page. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Oscar W
... is in an hardblocked range (91.108.202.67 - checkusered to make sure). Since you created his account, I think you might know better than me who he is. I have granted him the WP:IPBE right, and I'll keep an eye out for a few days. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I created the account based on a WP:ACC request, no reason to suspect he is anything other than a valid user, GDonato (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

God shave the queen
Would you please be so kind as to close the AFD for the article you speedied? SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was just in the process of doing that when you left this message. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow at least somebody has some sense. I tagged it for speedy and somebody felt it "wasn't a speedy criteria" and took it to AFD. The Bald One     White cat 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, didn't notice the declined speedy *slaps self*. Right result, wrong process. Ah well, GDonato (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Right result and right process. Speedy was the right process. It shouldn't have been declined. Regards, The Bald One     White cat 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The rationale "Use uncyclopedia for humor" is not a valid speedy criterion, and that's why I declined it. Honestly, I wish that the free-form speedy template would be deleted, because everyone should specify the criteria that they're citing for speedy deletion. However, I'm satisfied with the end result.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 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) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your reflexion there, on Eleland's page. As to the deletion, no one likes having their critical intolerance of crude remarks about other peoples' inferiority likened, as there, to antisemitism. That itself is a gross charge that should be used rarely, if the word, crucial to modern sensibility, is to retain its proper force and not suffer wear by unscrupulous abuse. FYI. The person whose remark was deleted, has protested on my page, and I replied there. Hope this is just a tempest in a teapot, about time I sat down and had a cuppa, too. From an admirer of the poetry and wonderful world of that fellow Scot, Robert Garioch, Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleland is, wildly upset at the way, and it has happened several times in the past, a legitimate if very rude protest at the way Palestinians are put down on a talk page or in an edit, has frequently met with offensive nonsense insinuating one subscribes to the Protocols of Zion. The outraged  reaction has often been punished, the seminal insinuation ignored. Hope one can simply drop this. It's Saxaphonemn, and now a kibitzer, stirring needless strife with a very fine editor. We need editors, we certainly do not need people who do not edit, but enjoy idly provoking flare-ups. I've intruded because I've seen so much of this in the past, and know it ends up in useless administrative hassles, which wastes everybody's time.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight, GDonato (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage. I'd be happier to see more administrator work you can do for me in WP:RFAA. -Porchcrop (talk 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

videopaltform - Need Your Help
Attention,

I was recently placed on the subject to speedy deletion list. I was under the impression that if an article was written by a 3rd party and was referenced then it could be placed on the page. Also, if it was written in a non-biased point of view and was more informitive then it could be placed. We had at least three articles written about us from reliable sources in the media, like MNSun, Columbus Daily, and Leesburg Today.

I have read posts about companies way more promotional that what was posted.

Your advice as too the next steps will be a helpful tool as to move forward. I have since deleted our page and will wait for your advice.

Thank you,

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoplatform (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although what you have said above is not strictly true, you certainly have the right idea. Based on your username, it would appear you have a conflict of interest with the subject so it may not be the best idea for you personally to create the page but if you do decide to go ahead I'd highly recommend reading WP:FIRST which tells you all you need to know about posting an article. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, yes I think GDonato covers it all - WP:FIRST will tell you about creating your first article. :) The  Helpful  One  Review 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

videopaltform - Need Your Help
I appreciate your help. I did however list the references with a link to where they were published with the date.

I will review the information you sent over and will try again.

I really appreciate your time.

Thank you,

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoplatform (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Images
Please give people enough time to type up a fair use rationale before adding CSDs. It's annoying enough that the upload form makes it so difficult to upload images of dead people. Richard001 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The description part of the upload form allows you to enter NFCC/source info before the upload happens, if you use this there will be no such problems in the future. Uploading images of dead people shouldn't really be any harder than any other image. What problems have you had? Licensing? Source? Thanks, GDonato (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try adding it during the initial upload in future. There is no 'dead people' option given when uploading, so you are basically forced to leave it blank. You then have to figure out what to add yourself. I have uploaded 10 images of dead people by now so am used to it, but new uploaders are going to have more difficulty. I'm presuming the way I do it - using the general non-free use template, is the right way to go? I raised it before with little success, but I still think a template specifically for images of dead people would be a good idea (and, of course, a corresponding option in the drop-down box). Richard001 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in the process of adding this one as"historically significant image" using the general non-free use template is correct at the moment, yes. GDonato (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of places by name
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of places by name, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of places by name. Thank you. GDibyendu (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

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) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You weren't kidding...
... about a flood of account requests from UK IPs. I've created 20 odd accounts in the last few hours - that's more than the toolserver handled in an entire day last weekend! Thanks for updating the site notice, that kept me logged-in in case there were more requests. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems :) GDonato (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


David WS (contribs)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy holidays! David WS (contribs)  19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) GDonato (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


The Helpful  One  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I forgot you from my list :P The  Helpful  One  23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to know I was an afterthought, ;) GDonato (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks :) GDonato (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Yay! First "Happy new year" section. Happy new year to you as well, GDonato (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied!
Hey there! Just so you know, I replied here, just for you! :P But no, seriously, I'd love to see that template made a bit more cuddly. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D  16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)