User talk:David Levy/Archive2

Active discussions

Your help is requested in creating a new templateEdit

Hi -- because of your previous involvement in maintaining and improving Wikipedia templates, I thought you would be interested in plans to create a new template. The new template would be appropriate for two main cases: where an article is getting too large, and someone wishes to propose a new 'spin-out' article; and where a 'spin-out' article on the subject already exists but detail is still accumulating in the main article. The proposed name for the new template is Template:Movedetail, and I suggest that planning take place at Template talk:Movedetail.

Hope to see you there! -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Spanish WikipeidiaEdit

Welcome to Wikipedia in Spanish, I hope to you learn so much from us, like us from you (sorry me english) Alexan My talk page 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Estimad@ amig@ wikipedista. Desde este preciso momento en el que has decidido inscribirte en este Magno Proyecto, eres propietario del conocimiento de los miles, que como tu, han decidido compartirlo con los demás. Suerte en tus colaboraciones, pregunta cuando tengas dudas, léete las páginas que aquí te dejo y, por favor, colabora con muchos artículos nuevos. Gracias. 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC).

gif -> pngEdit

...issue of transparent PNG files displaying improperly in some browsers

This issue is a problem from a nonfree browser not a problem of PNG format. ¿Convert a free site for Best viewed with MSIE? Fix the problem or change the browser not the image.

I am not referring to any one browser in particular. For example, older versions of Opera contain this problem. People should update to newer versions, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to do this.
For the record, I am a Firefox user.

only results in a 1KB difference

These icons are used in hundreds of articles. A bit reduction in each one is a greet reduction for the server.

Overall, this reduction is very, very small. Such a tiny benefit is not worth the disadvantage of using an image that displays improperly for some people.

Sorry, you can see my english is not very goos. Regards. --Sanbec 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is much better than my Spanish. —Lifeisunfair 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Exploding animalsEdit

I think you're right about this one, so I'm giving in, as I said on the talk page. I just wanted to say "thank you very much" for being nice and humoring me by not re-reverting the template after I reverted it. You made your case clearly and without any scorn of arrogance, something that was a breath of fresh air for me. Thanks. Matt Yeager 06:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, thank you very much for participating in the discussion and considering my reasoning. That was a breath of fresh air for me. —Lifeisunfair 19:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


I have replied on Texture's talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


I see you've reverted the png icons on the merging templates to gif format. I didn't know about the issue you've said on the history page (being that png images and transparency don't display correctly on some browsers), but on this page, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb, at point 10 if I'm not mistaken, it is stated that icon images and other types of images similar should be svg or png when only raster image is available and such is the case. Gif should be for animation. jpg photographic. I won't put them back in png without your approval, I'm not forcing you, but maybe the image use policy page should be more precise. Optimager 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for discussing this with me!
Note that the section in question is entitled "Rules of thumb." The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "rule of thumb" as "a useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation." That's precisely what these rules are.
In most cases, it is preferable to use the PNG format (instead of the GIF format) for static icons, but the merger icons are unusual exceptions. They're very small (in terms of dimensions), and this has two pertinent effects:
1. The importance of the transparent background is much greater, because the images otherwise can be difficult to recognize. (A larger PNG simply doesn't look quite as good, but remains acceptable, especially given the reduced file size.)
2. Even in GIF format, the file sizes already are very small. The tiny reduction (1KB) is not nearly enough to justify the problem cited above.
Thanks again for being courteous enough to consider my edit summaries and initiate this discussion. I sincerely hope that I've explained my position to your satisfaction. —Lifeisunfair 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Good, I understand now. I didn't know that Rules of thumb meant something like that. I accept your edits, they can remain as gif, what you said makes sense. Thanks for the info, I'm new around here at editing (with an account, at least). Optimager 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Article status templatesEdit

Hello! I noticed that you've been adding a great deal of information to the various article status templates, and I'm writing to inquire about a portion of the text.

I recognize the benefits of the stating the associated category and listing the related templates in a "see also" section, and I agree that these templates should not be inserted via subst.

I don't, however, understand why you're including the sentence "This template is a self-reference." with a link to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The rule in question does not apply to article status notices within the template namespace, but this statement/link combination seems to imply that such templates are in violation and should not be used.

Could you please explain your reasoning behind the inclusion of this statement? Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it.
They are are self-references are they not? From how i see it, there are some templates that do not self-reference because they refer to other article in content, but there are some templates such as status templates which refer to Wikipedia maintenance.
This is the same with articles and categories.
They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it.
Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates.
Would that be a good idea?
-- Zondor 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"The common use for it would not be Wikipedia:Subst but it would be great if it does work with it."
Why would that be useful? These messages are intended to be temporary and easily removed, and should be readily identifiable via automated means by those who wish to mirror the actual article content elsewhere.
"They are are self-references are they not?"
Yes, but they're the type that is explicitly permitted.
"They are not in violation; I am just marking them to let people be aware of it."
1. How is it beneficial for "people be [made] aware of it"? Why should this particular ordinary element of Wikipedia be singled out for notation (as opposed to noting that "this template is rectangular" or "this template is blue"?
2. Don't you realize that referring to such a template as a "self-reference" while simultaneously including a link to a page entitled "Avoid self-references" strongly implies that the template should be avoided?
"Plus, I would like to put all those See Also references to other related templates into one template itself to be used in each of those templates. Would that be a good idea?"
My understanding is that it's best to avoid embedding one template within another (because of server strain issues). —Lifeisunfair 17:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
It can be very useful. For example, the AFD templates are often used for Subst to put less strain on the servers or whatever. So adding noinclude tags will muck it up because Subst will include everything. Why is it that way I wonder because it would be appropriate otherwise. People may think its spamming, but I am just giving it extra attention it should deserves. Perhaps Avoid self-references should be renamed to Manage self-references to avoid any connotations. -- Zondor 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
1. I understand why the use of the subst method sometimes is desirable. As I mentioned above, however, these particular templates should not be inserted in this manner; it's better for them to appear in the article bodies in shorthand form (surrounded by double curly brackets). This makes them easier to identify and remove (particularly by outside publishers of the articles).
2. You haven't explained (and I don't understand) why "extra attention" should be paid to the fact that these templates contain self-references. How is this information supposed to affect the manner in which the templates are utilized? In other words, in what way should a person put this knowledge to use, acting differently because he/she read your notation? —Lifeisunfair 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If they are subst'able then its an extra advantage in flexibilty. For example, I can reproduce the literal content of one of these templates to show you. A portal skeleton template could benefit from noinclude information but its primary use is in conjunction with subst. I am rewording my messages to: "This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content." and "This category is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.". Hope thats better. It's easy to know that the articles in the Wikipedia namespace is part of the project but not the encyclopaedic content. For templates and categories it would be a little difficult because some are self-reference and some are not. My underlying agenda is to mark all self-references so in the future one can easily programatically remove them. This would be beneficial for a distinct separation between project and content. Perhaps, all self-references would fall into one big category of Cat:Wikipedia self-references? In conjunction with stealth templates? -- Zondor 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Margaret TurnbullEdit

I don't usually seek out particular users for votes, but having seen Margaret Turnbull through the VfU I'd like to see it pass the subsequent AfD, located here. You didn't actually comment on the content and of course you're free to delete, keep, abstain etc. Just thought I'd pass it along because you commented twice on the VfU. Marskell 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes.Edit

Thank you for using ugly as a verb! SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tags on article pages/talk pagesEdit

Hi there. I see you changed back an edit I had made at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, regarding whether cleanup tags should go in talk pages or article spaces, noting that the consensus was that they could go into articles. Please could you refer me to the discussion that this consensus was reached at? Thanks, Enchanter 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't one unified discussion. This issue has arisen on several occasions at various templates' talk pages. I don't recall exactly which ones, but the older, less specific templates are the most likely. (The newer, more specific templates were patterned after the existing ones.)
As I referenced in my edit summary, none of these templates use the "CoffeeRoll" style (which was formally selected as the design for all talk page templates.) Article templates come in variety of colors (blue for cleanup, purple for mergers and splits, etc.), but talk page templates always should use the "CoffeeRoll" format. If a template doesn't, it's a safe assumption that it's either the product of a consensus for article placement or a specialized version of a such a template. A talk page link (which many of the templates in question contain) is another clear indication of article placement (because it obvious doesn't make sense to refer readers to a page that they're looking at). —Lifeisunfair 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoax vandalismEdit

The discussion is here. Please join! Pilatus 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD Merger TemplatesEdit

Hi there,

Your merge templates were a perfect solution - Just to let you know that I've started to use them in closing debates since today as a trial basis (and hopefully it all works well). :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for contacting me! I've seen these used by a couple of other sysops so far, and there don't appear to be any problems.
I designed {{afd-mergefrom}} for placement on the article's talk page (hence the "CoffeeRoll" coloring). My reasoning is that it's appropriate to add a large, colored tag to an article that's intended to become a redirect (just as we do with {{merging}}), but it's preferable to avoid adding such a banner to the surviving article (which generally is in no danger of deletion).
Thanks again for using my templates and taking the time to write! —Lifeisunfair 12:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for not seeing the message. I've noticed it now. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem! I realize how easy it is to overlook messages on a cluttered talk page.  :) —Lifeisunfair 04:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


About your edit to {{disambig}}. Dab pages that list topics are doing so incorrectly - contrary to the manual of style. The previous wording of "which lists articles that may otherwise share" was fundamentally correct, while "a list of topics associated" is wrong. Would you consider discussing this somewhere.--Commander Keane 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

By "topics," I meant both article links and singe-sentence mentions of alternative connotations that lack dedicated articles (but often contain links to related articles). I wasn't referring to pages that contain full-fledged write-ups of disparate topics (which, of course, is incorrect).
I do see how "topics" isn't the best word to convey the intended message, and I just changed it to "meanings," which hopefully is less ambiguous. Thanks very much for bringing this issue to my attention (instead of reverting). I sincerely appreciate it. If you still have concerns regarding the wording, I'm more than willing to discuss them at the template's talk page. —Lifeisunfair 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I had to revert this time. See the talk as to why. I'm happy to discuss changes - but it's an important template so we have to get it right.--Commander Keane 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion reviewEdit

I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best. Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates. That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best."
The advice in question was written without condescension. (I even included the word "respectfully," purely as a means of conveying the fact that no disrespect was intended.) I'm sorry that you viewed it as some sort of insult.
"Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates."
Suffice it to say, I disagree with your assessment, as do most of the WP:DRV voters (including "delete" voters from the AfD debate). I'm not suggesting that you change your mind, but merely that you accept the outcome and move on (instead of harping on how wrong all of us are).
I cited an example of a recent situation in which I found myself in a similar position. I still disagree with the TfD consensus, but I realize that my opinion is in the vast minority (and therefore must be overridden). Yes, this is frustrating, but such is life.
"That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character."
Ditto. —Lifeisunfair 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Bah. I still feel that your comments came across as condescending, and that the "respectfully" was about as useful as "Don't be mad when I say this", but I am totally undone by the artful way thay you nested the bullet points with colour. Bah. I'll go do something useful now. - brenneman(t)(c)
  • Oh! Almost forgot - I'll take "Ditto" to mean that you feel like I've insulted you back, so I'm sorry. Not my intent. Handshakes all around, etc. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Lifeisunfair. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango123 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosetta BarnstarEdit

hey there,

I saw your discussion on the proposed new barnstar, did you create that image? It's beautiful, congratulations. I think the general trend seems to be going that way. I really liked the globe one as well, but I think it would be better for geography. the UN one is nice too, but maybe too national with all those flags, maybe for some UN barnstar in future. the one with the tower of Babel is good too but too big I think... how many more votes do we need, are you familiar with the rules for creating new barnstars? great work, keep it up :-) cheers Gryffindor 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I was just replying to you at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals when you posted the above message. As I mentioned there, this is a straw poll — an informal means of gauging opinion. There is no official number of votes required, and it's become obvious that the proposal will succeed.
And yes, I did create the Rosetta barnstar image. Thanks very much for your kind words! —Lifeisunfair 01:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes I just saw it. Awesome. Please let me know if there any new developments regarding this barnstar, or if you ever need assistance in anything. Gryffindor 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

cleanup and qifEdit

I think nobody will notice the difference unless they have it watchlisted, I was thinking of adding an optional date parameter to the other members of the template:cleanup family... but thought maybe that would be too bold. My original idea was to try to make an undated {{cleanup}} default to the current month/year, but it doesn't seem possible. What I mean is if (in the template)...

  1. changed {{{1| }}} to {{{1|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}} the date noted in the cleanup tag would continue to update every month, thus changing the category each article is in, unless the template was substed onto the article, which would be best avoided at all costs.
  2. changed {{{1| }}} to {{{1|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}}, all future articles would default to the month and year that that change was made.

Any work-around you can think of for this? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was in the process of adding an optional date parameter to {{cleanup-section}} when you replied. (This shouldn't be controversial, as it doesn't require the creation of a new category.) Did I do this correctly?
I'm afraid that I'm stumped regarding a solution to the problem that you described. Ideally, the MediaWiki software would be updated to include such functionality (and eliminate the need for "if" templates). —Lifeisunfair 14:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Guess who's up. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


I just realized that the two images you used as examples that were wrongly tagged {{badJPEG}} were your own. I apologize if I offended you in some way, but I don't think that calling for the template to be deleted altogether because I made a couple mistakes was the appropriate response. —Bkell 06:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, and I assure you that I didn't nominate the template for deletion for any personal reasons. I used those images as examples because I noticed them on my watchlist. (That's how I learned of this template's existence.) I nominated the template for deletion because it appears as though it's being indiscriminately applied (both in wording and practice) to all non-photographic JPEG images. (I have only two on my watchlist, and both were tagged, so I find it difficult to believe that you "made a couple mistakes" when rapidly tagging over 1,800 images.) As I said, many of these images undoubtedly are from JPEG sources (and cannot be visually improved). If an existing image can be saved more efficiently as a PNG or SVG file, why not simply perform the conversion (instead of tagging it and waiting for someone else to do the real work)? —Lifeisunfair 07:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason is that none of the images that can be tagged can simply be resaved as a PNG or SVG file. That would defeat the entire purpose, since the JPEG compression artifacts would still be there, and the resulting file size would always be greater. In order to fix these JPEGs, someone has to either find that the original image was a GIF or PNG, and upload that instead, or get out some graphics software and redraw the image themselves. This is not a trivial task. Mysid has been doing some excellent work over the past few days redrawing JPEGs in SVG format, and I've done a few myself, although the best I can do with the software I have is to redraw them as PNGs. The {{badJPEG}} tag exists for the same reason the {{Cleanup-image}} tag does: the actual cleanup process will take a while, and in many cases whoever tags the image does not have the resources to do the cleanup work themselves.
In response to your other concern, as you noted I have tagged about 1,800 images in the past week. I am currently going through the Logos category and finding inappropriate JPEGs there (I'm somewhere in the middle of the C's). Nearly all of the images in that category that are in JPEG format would be happier as PNGs, but there are a few that I have skipped because I felt that JPEG is the best choice: Image:05 WSOP logo edited.jpg, Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg, Image:114203.jpg, Image:17N-manifesto.jpg, Image:2005 wsop logo.jpg, Image:2005poster.jpg, Image:20th Television.jpg, Image:320kidzone.jpg, and so on, and we aren't even close to the letter A yet. So I have tried not to indiscriminately apply this tag to all JPEGs that are not photographs. But I am only human, after all, and what I'm doing isn't especially exciting, so occasionally I find that I've zoned out for the past few images. Maybe it was during one of those periods I tagged both of your images (they would have been right next to each other in the list, you know).
More likely what happened was something like this: Let's look at Image:Call for Help US.jpg. The orange square that contains the C does have a bunch of gradients and different colors, but on a quick glance I might have thought it was two big blocks of different shades of orange separated by that little squiggle. The same for the big blue square that contains HELP: in a quick glance I probably saw maybe eight or nine different shades of blue there, sharply separated, and missed the subtle gradients. So it's a more complex image than I originally saw, and that's why it was tagged. My two-second evaluation of the image was incorrect.
I would invite you to take a look at Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression if you haven't already, and see the images that have been tagged. You will see that the vast majority need to be redrawn. Images like the two you presented are exceptions, and were tagged because I made a mistake. The template itself is still valuable tool for identifying areas of Wikipedia that need improvement. —Bkell 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason is that none of the images that can be tagged can simply be resaved as a PNG or SVG file. That would defeat the entire purpose, since the JPEG compression artifacts would still be there, and the resulting file size would always be greater.
The part about the compression artifacts is correct, but the part about the file size is not; it often would be increased in a straight conversion, but not "always." For example, see this image. I just converted it to a PNG file (without performing any other edits), and this reduced the file size by 49.6%.
In order to fix these JPEGs, someone has to either find that the original image was a GIF or PNG, and upload that instead,
Why would someone have converted a GIF file or PNG file to the JPEG format before uploading it?
or get out some graphics software and redraw the image themselves.
For the entries that I'm seeing in this category, that simply isn't a valid option (because they're copyrighted images from official sources).
So it's a more complex image than I originally saw, and that's why it was tagged. My two-second evaluation of the image was incorrect.
Perhaps you should spend more than two seconds evaluating each image. :)
I would invite you to take a look at Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression if you haven't already, and see the images that have been tagged. You will see that the vast majority need to be redrawn.
Again, logos should not be redrawn. —Lifeisunfair 20:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I guess not "always." Perhaps that was hyperbole. Even if the file size is reduced, though, conversion to PNG won't get rid of any compression artifacts in the JPEG.
I don't know why people convert things to JPEGs, but it happens. Maybe they took a screenshot instead of just saving the image, and they saved the screenshot as a JPEG. Or maybe they have some mistaken idea that it would be better to convert the image to a JPEG, because JPEG always preserves colors better than GIF (which is generally true for things like photos, due to GIF's color depth limitations) or that JPEG is the "preferred" format for Wikipedia (which is not true). And even if the user performed no conversion, there still might be an "original" image in GIF or PNG format. For example, a corporation might have its logo in JPEG format on some Web pages and in GIF format on others.
I still don't understand why people insist that logos should not be redrawn. If a logo is redrawn by a Wikipedian to make the image clearer or the file size smaller, but the resolution is not changed, I don't see how this can affect the fair use status of the image. (In fact, I'm not even sure that the resolution of the image has anything to do with "fair use," but I'll play along.) And the JPEG compression artifacts that are present in a logo in JPEG format are obviously not part of the logo, so losing them is fine.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that logos don't belong on Wikipedia at all, because I don't see what they add to articles, and they are certainly copyrighted and so invite intellectual property hassles. But the existence of thousands of them is a good indicator that I've been outvoted, so I won't fight that. If we're going to have them, though, we should get the crispest, cleanest versions we can. —Bkell 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
By "redrawn," do you mean "cleaned up and saved in a different file format" or do you mean "replicated from scratch"? The former is perfectly fine (in my assessment), and I was under the impression that we were discussing the latter. —Lifeisunfair 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Either would be fine. Why would replicating the logo from scratch be a problem? Do you think it violates copyright law in some way, or do you think it would yield an image that is not "equivalent" to the original, or is there some other problem I'm not seeing? (By the way, I think we can just continue this conversation here, instead of having to copy it over to my talk page as well.) —Bkell 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that we possess the legal right to display an unauthorized imitation of a copyrighted/trademarked logo. No matter how skilled the creator, it almost certainly would contain some slight variations that set it apart from the real thing. Even if it appears to be perfect, none of us are qualified to judge. Therefore, only an officially issued version (perhaps with obvious compression artifacts removed) should be used. —Lifeisunfair 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
First, it should be noted that what copyright and trademark are protecting is not the pixel-by-pixel color values of a JPEG from an official source, but rather the overall "image" represented. So we don't need to be so paranoid about getting the logo directly from a corporate Web page and preserving it exactly as is for a Wikipedia article.
Second, consider an example: Image:007.svg, drawn by Gmaxwell. Extremely close inspection might reveal some slight differences from the "real" 007 logo, such as the shape of the curve of the upper part of the hole in the first zero, and the end of the gun barrel. But these differences are immaterial. It does just as good of a job in the James Bond article as the "real" 007 logo would. There is no injustice being done by these almost imperceptible differences. This drawing is still covered by the trademark laws that cover the "real" 007 logo, due to their similarity. And if it would qualify as "fair use" to use an official 007 image, then why would it not be fair use to use a redrawn version in the same way? What does it matter if the copy of the logo on Wikipedia is a byte-for-byte identical copy of an "official" version, or a copy that someone made from scratch? The question of whether an infinitely scalable image like this SVG version still qualifies as fair use might be a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here. —Bkell 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue, as I perceive it, is that we're permitted to use these logos under very specific conditions. I'm not a legal expert, but I don't believe that we're entitled to display what essentially amounts to a knockoff of an official image. I'm not saying that our version needs to be a pixel-for-pixel duplicate of any particular file, but it should fall 100% within the organization's registered specifications. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate representation, and I don't see how that can qualify as fair use. —Lifeisunfair 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe there are only registered specifications for a logo in the very specific case of registered trademarks, and trademark law doesn't have a concept of "fair use" (that's part of copyright law). In a nutshell, trademark law prohibits people or organizations from using a trademark, or a confusingly similar mark, on competing products or services. This is to protect consumers, so that trademarks can be reliably associated with specific products (i.e., so that when I go to the store and buy Brand ABC milk, I know that it was actually produced by ABC Company, and not fraudulently labeled "ABC" by the nefarious XYZ Company, trying to make a penny off the good name of ABC). This doesn't really apply to Wikipedia, except maybe in articles that would incorporate trademarks of other encyclopedias, or the like. Under trademark law, I think Wikipedia should have no problem displaying logos of most organizations, since there isn't competition.
It's copyright law that comes into play. Copyright is the right to reproduce, or to authorize others to reproduce, intellectual property. The "fair use" clause is what Wikipedia claims in order to use logos in articles. This is the same clause that is invoked to allow excerpts from books, scans of CD cover art, and so forth to be used. It has nothing to do with the fact that these logos are the trademarks of organizations (because that's covered by trademark law, not copyright law). The exact conditions under which fair use may be claimed are a little fuzzy; see [1] for an overview. As far as I can tell, though, the important point here is that copyright law doesn't distinguish between methods of reproduction. So, if we're going to claim fair use, it doesn't matter if we copy the image byte-for-byte, or if we reproduce it from scratch.
Now, after having said all that, I should also remark that I am not a lawyer. —Bkell 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
If it were realistic to expect a logo reproduced from scratch to be substantially identical to the "real thing," there would be no problem. It isn't the mechanism that I believe is inappropriate; it's the likely outcome (an inaccurate representation of someone else's intellectual property). —Lifeisunfair 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree with that, although I might be more optimistic about the likely outcome. In any case, I certainly won't complain if someone takes a JPEG from a company's Web page, fixes the artifacts in some graphics program, and then uploads that as a PNG. If someone later comes along with a redrawn version, and it's inaccurate or crappily done, we can always revert back to the previous image. Keep in mind, though, that the "original" JPEG image might itself be an inaccurate representation of intellectual property; consider the Mountain Dew logo to the right. ;-) —Bkell 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
To clarify something that might be misunderstood, I don't want the job of redrawing logos to fall to Joe Newbie, who will pull out Microsoft Paint and puke out a badly drawn bitmap. I expect that if these logos are redrawn, it will be done with some professional-level graphics program. This is one reason the {{badJPEG}} tag shouldn't be viewed in the same light as, for example, the {{no license}} tag, where if the problem isn't fixed in a week the image will be deleted. If a JPEG version is the best we have at the moment, then by all means use it in articles. The {{badJPEG}} tag should be viewed as a "wishlist" rather than an ultimatum. —Bkell 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example of someone converting an image to a JPEG before uploading to Wikipedia: Image:Republic of the Rio Grande.jpg, which was converted from before being uploaded. I couldn't find an example at the time, but I thought I'd let you know just in case you were still skeptical. ;-) —Bkell 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent improvement of the wording of the template. —Bkell 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) —Lifeisunfair 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-date -> Template:CleanupEdit

Cool. I have adjusted Pearle to use just "cleanup" now. I don't think there's really much point in changing all the existing cleanup-dates to cleanup. We have a lot of template redirects where people use whatever they're most familar with, and we don't try to canonicalize them. These should work their way out of the system in about a year, anyway, as articles get cleaned up. (Or sooner, if we make a concerted effort.) -- Beland 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

don't make things personalEdit

My revert was purely in support of a guideline endorsed by the Wikimedia developers and the ArbCom. It adds nothing to the discussion to sling an insult at me. If you want to do that, use my talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of deliberately insulting anyone; my questions are sincere. —Lifeisunfair 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please keep your sincere personal criticisms to a private talk page. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages aren't private. —Lifeisunfair 08:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
At this point is where other people might continue to bicker over petty word interpretation. I'm done with this thread. Just please keep template talk pages on the topic of the template. "Comment on the edit, not the editor" and soforth. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not splitting hairs. Anyone can view our talk pages.
I believe that my questions (which you've yet to answer) are relevant to the template. Nonetheless, I have respected your request by replying here. —Lifeisunfair 08:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You asked two questions, only one had to do with the template. I answered it. -- Netoholic @ 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The questions to which I referred:
Have your editing restrictions been lifted? If so, does this mean that you intend to go right back to template revert warring?
The answers to these queries directly impact {{spoiler}} and other templates. —Lifeisunfair 08:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you have a user page?Edit

Anyway, thank you for your support. I'm now an ADMINISTRATOR. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:36, Dec. 17, 2005

Congratulations! You'll be a terrific sysop. I've been meaning to get around to creating a user page, and I finally have done so. —Lifeisunfair 11:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox templateEdit

Hmmm yes I see your point about the product colors, but I liked it better before. It doesn't go with my other colors now... too dark. Oh well I guess there are hundreds of editors using this template. If nobody else objects, it's cool. Just creating this section in case anybody else wants to discuss...Herostratus 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the template in my user page. But shouldn't the one be updated as well: Kucing 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Please excuse my wrong reversion. And thanks for reverting it. – Adrian | Talk 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Important newsEdit

It turns out that we've been asked by the MediaWiki developers to limit the use of conditional templates as much as possible. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates).

I've reinstated {{cleanup-date}}, and we need you to reset Pearle to use it instead of the reformatted {{cleanup}} tag (and ideally replace all of the instances that it added).

I sincerely apologize for having steered you down the wrong path, and I hope that the resultant inconvenience is minimal. —Lifeisunfair 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've switched back and am cleaning up now. -- Beland 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in adminship?Edit

Hey, I was looking over my talk page, and I remembered dealing with you over Template:Exploding animals (see User_talk:Lifeisunfair#Template:Exploding_animals up there)... and it came to mind that you were remarkably level-headed and nice. Your edit count and experience at Wikipedia looked good to me, so I checked up Wikipedia:List_of_administrators and you weren't listed there, so I'm assuming you're not an admin already. I was planning on nominating you at WP:RFA, but I figured that I should check with you first to make sure that you don't have some moral aversion to adminship or something. ;)

Would you be willing to accept a nomination? Matt Yeager 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then, in that vein...
And good luck to you! Matt Yeager 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

United States vs American Television Networks CategoriesEdit

The bot is functioning normally. A user attempted to rename Category:United States television networks and Category:United States radio networks without bringing the matter to WP:CFD. I swapped the tags to reverse the process. The same user also performed a copy-and-paste move of List of United States cable and satellite television networks to List of American cable and satellite television networks, the latter of which was speedily deleted. I intend to nominate the two new categories for deletion after the bot has finished emptying Category:American radio networks. —Lifeisunfair 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me. :)
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You're very welcome. :) —Lifeisunfair 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I confronted User:Ronald20 about the clipboard jobs (i.e. cut/paste) on his talk page and got no response. Thus, I would support stronger action if this continues. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:17, Dec. 22, 2005

Thanks very muchEdit

Happy holidays. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar BarnstarEdit

I hereby award you this Barnstar Barnstar for your tireless efforts of improving Wikipedia by creating and awarding barnstars. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My vote;Your RFAEdit

I thought this was clear by now. I find your username to be negative, and contributes to a negative atmosphere. If an anonymous user with little Wikipedia experience were to vandalize and then be disciplined by a user named "LifeisUnfair" I can see them getting the wrong idea and quitting. If you changed your username I would support you. freestylefrappe 19:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

... whereas I think this is nonsense, and your username is creative and interesting. Are you sure you want to change it? — Dan | talk 02:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid so. This isn't the first time that someone has taken issue with my username, and it likely wouldn't be the last. If I'm to be a sysop, I want to serve the community in the most effective manner possible, so it probably is best for me to switch to my real name (which presumably shouldn't be objectionable to anyone other than anti-Semites). —Lifeisunfair 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Username changeEdit

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an absolute farce that you've had to change your name just because someone opposed you for not liking your old name. Anyhow, good luck with your RFA. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that someone has taken issue with my username, and it likely wouldn't have been the last. If I'm to be a sysop, I want to serve the community in the most effective manner possible, so it probably was best for me to switch to my real name (which presumably shouldn't be objectionable to anyone other than anti-Semites). —David Levy 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I was about to say... The change in username also means a very large number of Jewish RFAs of late...! חנוכה שמח ובהצלחה jnothman talk 11:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I remain baffled by how the developers can possibly be taken as being less than clear at any point. From day one, Jamesday said that meta-templates cause noticable database strain, and should be avoided. Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates:
I merely want to understand the nature and extent of the problem. I'm more than willing to abide by the developers' recommendations, but Jamesday's statements on this page are not particularly specific. "Using resources unnecessarily is not helpful," but how should we define "unnecessarily"? (Technically, all templates are unnecessary.) Should we merely "work at reducing the use of qif," or should we ban it entirely?
I'm not saying, "let's all continue to use these templates until we're told not to." I'm saying, "let's be told what not to do, and hopefully no one will try to do it."
Every pertinent comment by Jamesday that I've read has been something along the lines of "try to avoid using those" or "try to reduce their use." I've never seen him recommend an outright ban. If he does feel that way, I want him to say so, thereby putting to rest all doubts. This, however, would not change my template use in the slightest, because I already have decided to err on the side of caution (by avoiding conditional templates completely). I'm speaking on behalf of the community, which I believe is entitled to a first-hand apprisal of the situation.
Perhaps you've privy to some of Jamesday's comments with which I'm unfamiliar, or maybe your understanding of his intentions is clearer than mine. Regardless, you've misrepresented my stance on this issue. —David Levy 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is the usage of the words "should be avoided". I have learned now the hard way that you interpret this as "don't ever create and use any template that calls another template". If you say everywhere "avoid to use that", everybody seeks reasons to demonstrate that his or her uses qualify as an exception. I also asked on WP:AUM whether there are any exceptions that qualify as noble ones, ones that are not expected to be removed. But I got no answer. So I suspect now there aren't any. Furthermore I would propose to stop saying we ignore the developers. This is not correct. – Adrian | Talk 11:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop! Sango123 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Congrats! NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Go David go! :) Congratulations. Matt Yeager 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Gratz teh adminship. Now back-stab them all by changing your name back, lol. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:53, Dec. 28, 2005
CONGRATS!! (And yeah, I agree with Freak. Go for it!) I look foreward to seeing you around _fD pages, and good luck with el mop and broom! -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad to have someone as good as you alongside me as an admin, as I'm sure you'll do just fine. If you have any questions, ranging from the simplest protection (and now semi) to rangeblocks and taboo issues, feel free to ask myself or any of the other admins/mop weilders. Again, congrats, and I'm sure you'll be great. My theory: you start out as a new contributor and mess up tons just learning the ropes. Then you graduate and become experienced; they hand you the mop. You mess up tons, and then you learn from it, and the cycle continues. Good luck learning the ropes, and have fun! -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats on adminship! -- Jbamb 13:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, my plan is coming to fruition. Soon my agents will have fully infiltrated the cabal. Mwa-ha-ha-ha. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, you have blocked User:Miskin and User:Macedonia for 3RRvios on Macedonians (ethnic group). I protected that article due to the edit-warring before I became aware of your block. I have offered to lift their blocks so that they can negotiate and reach an acceptable solution to their dispute on the talk page sooner than wait for their blocks to expire. IMO rehabilitation is more important than punishment on Wikipedia. I just thought it appropriate to tell you what I've done. Thanks. Izehar 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobbydoop and 3RREdit

Hi David, sorry about the trouble for Bobbydoop. I'm not convinced that he is following Wikipedia etiquette, but I may [have] nominated him for 3RR too soon. We'll see if we can work it out in a hopefully less confrontational manner. --BenjaminTsai Talk 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast. He's now editing here, making the same changes in the Bronx Science article: (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) An AOL account... Great. Tfine80 05:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And now created this account SnoodleGirl (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), editing on St. John's. Tfine80 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On userboxenEdit

For what it's worth, I think userboxen are probably a bad thing too. I'm iffy on the babel ones, and dislike pretty much everything else, but I suppose the problem with trying to delete them is that all the people who have already been distracted by their baubles don't want them to go. It's too bad they were not nipped in the bud at an earlier point. --Improv 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I was thinking of Wikipedia:Revert:

A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.

I'm not sure now - could you block User:Anittas and User:Ghirlandajo who have violated the 3RR according to my strict definition. I would do it, except I have already said I won't - the revert war continues. Izehar 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PS those two users are listed at WP:AN/3RR. Izehar 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Forget it - IMO it's best to turn a blind eye and not get involved. Izehar 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I see you blocked - it's probably best. I bet that once I check my e-mail, my mailbox will be full of "unblock me" messages. These will of course be ignored, just ike the last time... I think I should keep away from 3RRvios and go and live a quiet peaceful life on AfD and stub-sorting :-) Izehar 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, David. I noticed that you blocked this user for 3RR violation. Would you please list the reverts you counted against him on his talk page? Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see more than three. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I was hoping you counted them wrong, but it's obvious that it was me who made a counting error. It's a pity to lose Ghirla for 24 hours—he is otherwise a really fine contributor who makes tons of high-quality edits around holidays. I can only hope he'll be more careful in future.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No Ezhiki. He counted very well. And speaking about his fine contributor and high-quality edits....So much to speak about them....I know he hates Poland and me also but..."This piece of trash" ??? ???
Look who's talking about! Good joke, Ghirlandajo! What about you Ghirlandajo? They didn't start the RfC against you for nothing I suppose!? ????

Just look at his contributions:

  • Calling names, ad hominem attacks and usage of offensive language
    • Calling Poles Polacks [2]
    • When asked to apologize or stay on topic, he replied with [3]
    • Offensive language [4], "zombie", revert zombie, [5],
    • Suggestions of being intoxicated by obscure Polish hack writers, ignorance, ad hominem arguments, calling the arguments of the opponents slurs and hysteria, offensive language, ethnic slurs... all is there, in one edit diff. Also, bizarre accusations of some sort of conspiracy [6]
    • [7] [8] if this statement is a personal opinion of Halibutt, Molobo, Rydel, and Co, you may continue gaping at your cheap Polish propaganda booklets about alleged Russian massacres, which I daresay are "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia" as well
    • ad hominem attack , later even strengthened; rvv a revert maniac: can't we block him?, [9], [10]
    • [11] racist ethnic generalizations and accuasion of incivility on behalf of the entire Polish nation
    • Removing Belarusan spelling from Belarusan articles and putting Russian spellings instead. For example, [61] - he removed Belarusian spelling from an article about the most famous Belarusian woman and re-instated Russian spelling of her name, with the following comment: "Belarusian spelling is as pertinent as swahili". The same happened with Usiaslau of Polatsk and Euphrosyne of Polatsk (removing the Belarusan spelling with the comment: "outlandish spelling corrected").

So again look who's talking about! -- 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirla seems VERY disturbed with his block. Do you think he should be unblocked? Izehar 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any policy backing to that block? I don't think there is - there is no proof that that anon is Ghirla - I'll be resetting the block to 24 hours. Izehar 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Even so, no policy provides for a doubling of a 3RR block for evading it. Izehar 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry - I was thinking of bans (as opposed to mere 3RR blocks), where evasion causes the block timer to restart, not to double. Rest assured I will not mess with your blocks again. I am more concerned about losing a valuable contributor - we say don't bite the newbies, but we also don't want to lose experienced and valuable contributors who actually write articles, which is more that can be said for you or me. Anyway, I apologise - I still am against your 48 hour block and have never seen a precedent for that. Izehar 22:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Look, I'd like to make a proper apology with regard to my resetting your block. I guess I did not heed the "discuss with the blocking administrator" guideline. I think it would be best if there were no bitter feelings - if we are going to work here together, I see no point in it. Izehar 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry about my edit to the Macy's picture's description. I didn't see it. All I saw was the wreath, and a Christmastree. Chooserr 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the rewording. I never did like the tone of the first sentence. It had an air of "You'll have to do better than that." Gazpacho 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


That shouldn't count under 3RR, it was a reversion of obvious anon vandalism and was made IGF. --Node 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello David can you watch Anti-Romanian discrimination? Mikka makes revert war there, I reverted once. -- 23:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And here Transnistria -- 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
(cur) (last) 23:36, 31 December 2005 (I report you 3RR)
(cur) (last) 23:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Node ue)
(cur) (last) 23:05, 31 December 2005 (rv vandalism from node ue)
(cur) (last) 22:15, 31 December 2005 Node ue (Umm... Tag, it's antipolicy to re-introduce copyvio material. (other changes as well))
(cur) (last) 21:49, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
(cur) (last) 21:29, 31 December 2005 (rv)
(cur) (last) 21:05, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Economy - rm repetition)
(cur) (last) 21:01, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Others (in Romanian language))
(cur) (last) 20:57, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
(cur) (last) 18:05, 31 December 2005 (stop it right there ASSHOLE)
(cur) (last) 17:46, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
(cur) (last) 08:05, 31 December 2005 (rv BBC reference Transnistria:"Misery in a pariah state")
(cur) (last) 07:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Names)
(cur) (last) 07:18, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Administrative regions)
(cur) (last) 07:15, 31 December 2005 JarlaxleArtemis m
(cur) (last) 07:13, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Bibliography)

revert war made by mikka. He was warned once. He refused to cooperate. He erased valid sources. -- 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care his reasons. He as contributor should know not to revert more than 3 times and to edit in the same time. -- 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He as admin tries to impose his POV. Instead of talking on the talk page he wants to impose his POV version. Very bad from an Admin to do that. Looks very bad. -- 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

protecting page, edits and push POV of MikkaEdit

Hello David, please can you unblock Transnistria page? It seems that this bias Admin had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to removed so much refereces including very neutral from BBC.

Wish you all the best in 2006! Bonaparte talk 10:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with the situation on Stuyvesant High School?Edit

Hi David, I'm feeling a little bit lost as to how we can deal with the situation on Stuyvesant High School. The account Bobbydoop is no longer responding to the talk page, but an anonymous IP with an editing pattern similar to Bobbydoop continues the "debate".. one that is going no where. I've tried to request an outside perspective from the Mediation Cabal, though nothing has come of it yet. As an example of the way the "debate" is going.. the anonymous IP said at one point, "is there any proof that he didn't die? the article specifically states that he died", which is interesting seeing that the (long) article did not say he died, and furthermore the "dead" person is well and alive as of December 2005 according to multiple external sources. --BenjaminTsai Talk 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


I notice that you chose not to block a nationalist revert warrior, User:Vasile, for 3RR violation whereas you blocked myself for exactly the same. Vasile deletes my edits whenever he can find them, spawns revert wars, and you are lending him your support. You are not neutral, face it.

You might also want to check User_talk:Mikkalai for another veteran blocked from editing Wikipedia for having violated 3RR on the same article as myself fending off attacks by the same trollish anon. As best I know, Mikkalai is the most prolific contributor on the Eastern European topics and one of the top ten most active wikipedians ever. And he is going to leave too.

To spend such an amount of personal time on fighting vandalism and nationalist trolls - and to be blocked from editing while pursuring that very cause? It's just not worth it IMHO. Today, when I returned to post a farewell message, I looked through my 1500-entries watchlist and noticed templates blanked, articles vandalized for days. The Russian articles are too obscure to be featured in anyone else's watchlist i think. But I don't care. With mikka, the problem is so much bigger, as the amount of work he does is huge!!! You don't have anyone to replace him at all. These are your problems now. --Ghirla | talk 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the man

Happy New Year!Edit

Hello David, I would like to wish you a Happy New Year! From Bonaparte talk 11:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox PopeEdit

I reverted that template only once today. I edited it twice. In any case, I would rather us both be blocked than to have Jtdirl's 3RR violation go unanswered. She reverted two editors today.... and has been waging that revert war since at least August on that template. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Idea for stable template version transclusionEdit

Hi David. I have an idea that I wanted to tell to you first. You have been looking at the template:Infobox President thing with Neto and me recently. I was dreaming about explicit template versions. I have an idea how to achieve that with the existing MediaWiki software.

We could do the following:

On template:Infobox President we could create (just as an example) template:Infobox President/33438160 and copy in there the contents of Template:Infobox_President&oldid=33438160.

In George W. Bush we could then write

{{Infobox President/33438160}}

This would mean that we want version oldid=33438160 transcluded there.

template:Infobox President/33438160 could be protected as it is not meant to ever change.

Please answer here. I'm watching this page. Thanks for looking at this! Adrian Buehlmann 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me.  :-) —David Levy 19:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm a bit concerned with that ugly number. But it might be ok for starting a broader discussion. I'm thinking about starting a page under the Wikipedia namespace. Maybe Wikipedia:Template versions. Adrian Buehlmann 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Really bad idea. This makes any notion of a "standard" template disappear, it makes maintenance of the template namespace atrocious, it will cause more edit wars than we have now (as each individual article forks off it's own version). Take a look at WP:TFD.... people hate template forks. -- Netoholic @ 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If Adrian was proposing a system of permanent template forks, I misunderstood; I thought that this was merely a means of transitioning articles from one version of a template to another. —David Levy 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. I think you might have misunderstood it. My intention is not to enable forks. I would propose a standard conduct for template writers and editors that follows some rules. An important rule is that under template:Infobox President/33438160 shall not happen any development. That template is frozen for all times to be the exact version oldid=33438160 of Infobox President. And thus can be fully protected. It would just be some sort of a constant that can be used in articles, a name that can be used to transclude a distinct version of Infobox President. Development should only happen at template:Infobox President and it should flow freely there. Article editors would then have the opportunity to say, yes that new version is now ready and we do upgrade to that new parameters (or whaterver adaption is needed) and we now switch to the newer version of the template. Development could then proceed without disturbing articles. It would also be possible that if an article only uses stable template versions that if you look at an old revision of that article you get exactly that view when it was then. Today this is not possible. On the level of the article you always have the newest version of the template. For some templates and/or articles this is ok, but for some articles this might be not. Upgrading to a new version of a template sometimes needs some adaption, so adapting the article and switching to a new version of the template should ideally happen at the same time. Adrian Buehlmann 21:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Netoholic, but I did misunderstand your proposal, which I now strongly oppose. Sorry. —David Levy 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Could you explain why? Adrian Buehlmann 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This proposal would result in template forking. Different editors would prefer different versions of a template, and would revert war over which one to use. Your idea also would require every article to be updated after every template edit (no matter how minor), unless we were to abandon the concept of uniformity.
Each template should have one active version (except during the type of short-term transition period that we suggested to Netoholic). If behind-the-scenes development is desired, that should be done on a sub-page. —David Levy 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think I got your point. Today we have the situation that articles can be individually protected but that does not hinder to change those if they transclude a template that is not protected. Thus the vandalism argument against meta-tmplates. I find that the vandalism argument applies to all templates, not only on metatemplates. We now also have the situation that if a template (one that is fully conformant to WP:AUM) is transcluded in a lot of articles it is very difficult to change that template becuase it immediately affects all articles. This also can lock the database for seconds, even if no qif is around the scene ("But, templates are in the more near term a threat because they take out lots of servers for a while if a popular template is changed" - Jamesday in User_talk:Jamesday#multiple DB servers?). I do not say that all articles always should use those explicit template versions. But there are situations where this might definitely be good. For example George W. Bush could specify a certain template version and if that article is semi-protected then the decision to take that version is also protected. The argument of the edit warring per article is a good one. Today it immediately happens on the template. See Firebugs reaction on GWB article. He saw that GWB looked bad, noticed it is due to the template. Then he saw that template had been change. He then said, ok I disagree with that so I revert that template change. Then immediately all already converted articles were affected and looked horribly broken, which lead to a whole group of editors fixing in parallel on several articles at once. Adrian Buehlmann 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of the problems that arose, and that's why I suggested the aforementioned transition scheme to Netoholic. —David Levy 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for taking part in that discussion. I have now an idea how that proposal would be seen. Think it has not much of a chance. So I will definitely not start a new page. Thanks again for your thoughts. Adrian Buehlmann 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)



What do you do with an anonymous user that leaves rude comments when I try to tell him his edits are NPOV? His edits are also full of "&"s and rhetoric questions and generally, style that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. See User_talk:PeregrineAY

PeregrineAY 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, non-NPOV. Thanks. PeregrineAY 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Firefox templateEdit

I am enforcing the limitations of fair use and WP:FU which goes above and beyond any talk page discussion though I apologize for not dropping a note on the talk page when removing the image, I should have at least left a note. Also in terms of bordering on vandalism whatever happened to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I suggest you read up on those since you apparently don't remember them. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect WP:IAR but I not so blatantly when it comes down to policy violations, also as stated before Mozilla may be content with giving up their rights but we can't use them unless they're willing to give them up under a proper license and that's Wikipedia's rules and one that I don't support blatantly ignoring, as such we have to use them as fairuse (and so the image is tagged as such) and that includes that we need to follow the guidelines for following images under fair use. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
But why did you leave the sidebox blank?! because despite trying I couldn't get the code work without the sidebar and I didn't have an acceptable image to replace the current image that was in there with and I assumed that this being a wiki and all someone would be kind enough to either add an acceptable image or entirely get rid of the sidebox... I never thought for a second that a fellow editor and an administrator of all people would accuse me of vandalism and put me on the stake for such a simple little issue. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if you took it that way and I did not mean any disservice to the hard work you put into the template, also yes I did agree to drop the issue but then took it up again after the realization that there are users who will keep fighting to abuse fairuse (and I don't mean the Firefox image, I mean images that are logos of commercial companies like microsoft) despite being told that fairuse does not allow certain uses and neither does Wikipedia policy so I have decided to take the issue back up. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


You are going to shatter any sense of normal operations on WP:TFD. The page is already approaching '300kb in size. I contacted Tony, and he needs to come up with a better place to make that vote happen. -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't pull that BS. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BS, like doing something that will disrupt Wikipedia just to have the satisfaction of rubbing shit in my face. Several Arbitrators have asked that admins not be too strict with enforcing those thing while my clarification request is on. In any case, my edit was to postpone, not silence, the userbox deletion debate before streams of editors start piling onto that page. It is just not ready for it. So stop being a prick to me and to the right thing. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BS. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unjust blocking reduxEdit

Hi, David, you may want to defend your recent behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_by_Bonaparte --Ghirla | talk 10:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: -moz-*Edit

Yeah, -moz-* properties are mozilla-specific, usually early implementations of stuff that the W3C hasn't ratified yet or somesuch. Microsoft's equivalent is -mso-* (which you may have noticed if you ever tried to save an HTML file in MS Word and watched it bloat) - SoM 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Go for it! appears to be quite fond of such code. This is fine for user pages and user talk pages, but I believe that it's inappropriate for use in the encyclopedia proper. Aside from my personal opinion that the rounded edges look bad, I don't think that we should deliberately create major browser-based style differences. I feel that we should strive to provide as uniform an appearance as possible among all of the graphical browsers. (I've just posted this comment to Go for it!'s talk page.) —David Levy 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Round edgesEdit

I've been looking for code for round corners for the other browsers, but haven't been successful finding any so far. I'm not sure any other browser supports round edge rendering. If you are aware of any code, let me know so I can expand my experimentation to include the other browsers.

Is there a feature of wikimedia that counts hits per page? Or, are there records of hits kept in the sql database that drives wikipedia? It would be useful to know how many people are seeing the changes. Failing that, are there any statistics on the proportion of readers to editors? So far, the only feedback I've gotten (on my talk page or the various edited pages' talk pages) is a handful or two. They seem to either really like the style or really dislike it, and so far run about equal. Any assistance you could provide for digging for statistics would be most appreciated. --Go for it! 03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any code that can be used to accomplish this in the other browsers. (In fact, I wasn't aware of the Mozilla code until now.) My understanding (based upon what I've been told by SoM) is that this feature has not been widely implemented.
I don't know the answers to your other questions, and I suggest that you attempt to contact one of the MediaWiki developers.
As for the rounded corners, I'm afraid that I belong to the "really dislike it" camp. (I use Firefox, so I noticed the difference.) The appearance is extremely jagged.
But again, even if this looks terrific, I oppose the idea of using code for the purpose of generating a style difference in some browsers. —David Levy 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

About Mozilla roundingEdit

Hello there. I too experience the rounding issues because i use Konqueror for the majority of my browsing. However, it should be noted that the actual main page still looks very nice without the rounded corners. It's unfortunate Internet Explorer "users" can't see it, but i guess it's just the fact that they are using a very outdated browser anyway. The magical Spum-dandy 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Round 5 of the Main Page Redesign is now in an "open-editing" phaseEdit

You had lots of ideas in the latest round of discussions. I've posted a modified Draft 5 as a starting point for a round of open-editing (inspired by the help-page redesign blitz we just had). You are welcome to join in on the fun.

We're in the process of producing a Draft 6 for the next round of voting, which will start sometime on Saturday. Go for it! 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I came across this redesign of the main page - and noticed that some people really like the Hebrew and Dutch main pages. Is there some reason that this type of organization isn't being considered - or has it already been considered and rejected. Thx in adv - Trödel•talk 06:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see that - it is pretty radical - and seeing all the content at once is useful. Perhaps smaller Iconts in the "browse bar" would be helpful - I think the visual is needed to make the Browse more obvious. Trödel•talk 07:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes - what do you think now? When I first came to Wikipedia I was confused that there was no where to start that was obvious. I think having the 10 main portals icons and their categories is very useful for someone used to web browsing as opposed to searching. Trödel•talk 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Come onEdit

I just spent hours improving the new mainpage. 5 minutes after I'm done i see that you reverted everything I did. There is no point in editing wikipedia, when people just revert everything. The edits were not vandalism, they in fact, made WP easier, to search and navigate, and made the page look better. I'm tempted just to leave WP and never come back if crap like this keeps happening. Tobyk777 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Firefox IconEdit

Exactly what's up with the firefox icon used on the user template box thing..? It looks like just the tail or something. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


I thought you may be interested to know that the Template Barnstar, which you supported is now a barnstar. Mind you, looking through your contributions, you deserve one too, so here you go!:

For many super edits to templates, I award you the first Template Barnstar!

smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I changed the date of introduction to January 8 (because that's when you posted the proposal). Thanks again! —David Levy 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that. OK. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Little PenguinEdit

Little Penguin (talk · contribs) was already warned of 3RR on his talk page (your note is actually on his user page). —Locke Coletc 05:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, he responded on his user page, and he reverted for a 5th time. I'll ammend the 3RR report with his 5th reversion as well. —Locke Coletc 05:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting admin action (nicely)Edit

Hello there, I see you're on-line; some time ago articles were created called Rami Nuri and Gopal Das. These were full of nonsense and hoaxes, but I merged what was valid into a new article and redirected them both. Problem: Anons either reverted the redirects to restore the nonsense or merged the nonsense into the new article. It was seriously compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. So I asked Zscout nicely and he protected the redirects. Months have passed and all of that nonsense has ceased. I now believe the time has come for the redirects to be unprotected, both because nothing in the wiki world should be protected forever and because if someone moves the main article, they wouldn't be able to fix the double redirects. Thanks, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

spacing outEdit

You could just try adjusting the spacing.... or maybe leave it be for someone else... or contact me. All choices are better than just *yawn* reverting. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if the spacing and colors were to be corrected, it wouldn't make the text-based icons look presentable. Such a setup is okay for copyright tags, but these templates need to look better than that.
And FYI, the spacing was different in each of the three browsers that I tried. —David Levy 08:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course the spacing is oging to be somewhat different in different browsers. Colors are easy to change, and these are project namespace templates.... the text looked "good enough". -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
And "I disagree" that the images are a responsible use of resources, or necessary. Shall we revert war over it? -- Netoholic @ 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
These are tiny images, and presentation matters. No, I don't want to revert war; I'm merely expressing my opinion. Are you implying that it's wrong for someone to revert changes that he/she believes make templates look bad? —David Levy 08:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're expressing your opinion, express your opinion - like I am. I believe that the images are bad for the templates, and either they need to go, or be replaced with text icons. Would it be wrong for me to revert you? (You see, my point is that your argument works both ways and is how people justify edit wars). -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, each up us believes that he's right. You modified the template without prior discussion, and I did the same. I don't know what you want me to say. —David Levy 09:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Say that the next time makes a change that really is harmless and is obviously going to deserve discussion, that you'll leave it be and discuss. You've reverted those twice today, once when Radiant! removed the images and once when I put in the text icons. Obviously something here is going on. -- Netoholic @ 09:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this actually happening? Is Netoholic lecturing me about template reversions? —David Levy 09:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a lot to teach people about both subjects. -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page DraftsEdit

I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Main PageEdit

It was already worded as an informal straw poll. We're on the same wavelength. --Go for it! 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that the message was as clear as possible. It wasn't inaccurate, but it was ambiguous; some people might have mistakenly gotten the impression that they were being invited to vote in an official election (similar to the recent ArbCom elections) to immediately determine a new Main Page. I felt that it was important to mention that this is part of WikiProject Usability, and that their feedback (not merely their voting) is requested. —David Levy 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, it looks like we ALL can agree on something. David Levy and I are certainly "on the same wavelength". I'm afraid that despite Go for it!'s support, the multi-draft premise has got to go. I only now realize, however, that it did increase the amount of feedback that we got by a lot. I'm itching to get a final draft put together.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

main page redesign templateEdit

I have removed the main page redesign template from the main page as it is unecessary, distracting, and blatantly innapropriate for the front page. If you want to advertise it then keep an advertising template on the top of Talk:Main Page and advertise it on places like AN and village pump so people will know about it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir, I'm afraid. I strongly agree that the message didn't belong there, and I was very surprised to see that it had been added.
I was just involved in a major (and directly related) dispute with the person who convinced an admin to insert the banner, so I didn't feel comfortable making the call to remove it myself (because it would have appeared as though I was spitefully attacking his work). Instead, I decided to merely templatize it, tone down the wording, and wait for someone else to pull the plug. —David Levy 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/DraftEdit

I'm posting this with three of the leadership in this effort: (alphabetically) David Levy, Go for it! and HereToHelp.

This page is getting to be non-navigable. The issue at hand is seems to have become one of deciding the procedure whereby a new MP is chosen and I believe that it deserves its own attention space. I therefore propose that you start a new page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main page selection procedure or whatever you decide. Post it prominently on this headline page and on the new page describe the two alternatives (many vs two) and invite discussion of the merits of both on the new talk page. The talk page can for example be set-up as two sections: (1) I prefer.... and (2) I prefer.... Since this will be a discussion of the pros and cons of each approach, it will not be a binding vote but rather a gathering of the communities thoughts. You (the principals) having heard from the community in a focused way can decide on the consensus opinion and if you can't decide then go on to another usability project. hydnjo talk 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm posting this with the same three principals in the MP effort that I posted to earlier: (alphabetically) David Levy, Go for it! and HereToHelp.

Hey you guys and especially Gfi! I hope that I didn't precipitate any bad blood between y'all by addressing my proposal to the three of you, you three just seemed to be in the leadership. I obviously don't agree with all of you, but I thought it efficient in making my point to post directly to the three of you. I am deeply apologetic if by my posts I have created or widened any rift amongst you - that was certainly not my intent. I am going to assume that we are continuing to work together on this. hydnjo talk 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I believe this is the first case where someone has provided fair use rationales for their user page images. Discuss on WT:FU and I'll abide by the result of that consensus. Please stop revert warring on my user page, as it's more distasteful than the images. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Locke ColeEdit

I would encourage looking at the background on this, that's what I put in his block but this is actually garbage that has been going on all day in this little row. First of all, he's reverted another user's page 3 times in 24 hours, if there's an issue with him violating policy he can notify an admin, not take it into his own hands. That really isn't the point though because why he's there is not to enforce Fair Use rules, it's to harass Neto.

The whole reason why he is there reverting Neto's page has to do with the edit warring on:

And elsewhere. Additionally Neto has provided some pretty clear eveidence that Locke is wikistalking him on AN/I.

Finally, this is his 2nd block in 24 hours (was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR, edit warring) and before that was blocked for harassment. He's earned a timeout I think.

--Wgfinley 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is abundant discussion on this at AN/I which is where any administrator should check in about pending issues on blocks and whatnot. I don't want to repost things that are posted on AN/I thoroughly discussing this so maybe you should go visit? --Wgfinley 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Before defining "valid defenses" of wikistalking you might want to go and put it into a historical context. First, it is a clearly defined section of the harassment policy. Second, there's a an Arbcom decision that makes it very clear. In looking at Locke's edits and reverts of Neto on various articles it is quite clear there is some intent to cause a disruption. Disruption is the key between following someone around who's making the same mistake and wikistalking. If you looked at Locke's contributions all day you would see a pretty clear intent to engage in wikistalking.

I'm not saying that Neto is right in all of this and I'm dealing with that, however, I have found Neto's mode of discourse to remain polite if insistent on his position where the discourse of Locke has been anything but. Then, making an issue of an image that has been on Neto's page for months (I have seen it before and it predates the Foundation decisions of fair use images outside of article space) after fighting with him all day on articles couldn't be a clearer case of wikistalking. You'll also find that Skyring erected an elaborate defense justifying his reasons for following another user around, it sounds remarkably similar -- the Arbcom unanimously rejected his argument. --Wgfinley 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See the forest through the treesEdit

Here, it's as simple as this. He and Neto have been at it all day today on Template:Infobox and AUM. I'm not providing diffs, go to the histories at either one and it's very plain, Then, after all this warring, he removes the image not once, not twice, but three times from Neto's page. The issue is not whether the image should be there, that's plain, it doesn't. What the issue is that he was not there to do Wikipedia a service, he was there because he's been warring with Neto all day and wanted to make sure he got another shot in somewhere else. Finally, I reviewed the requests to have Neto remove it and frankly, didn't find them to be polite nor did I find a request for him to remove it himself. Astonishingly I put a polite request on his talk page and the image hasn't shown back up. Works wonders. To summarize, even if Neto is wrong nothing justifies the edit warring on his user page, there are other avenues available. --Wgfinley 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here - this seems like an attempt to provoke Neto. Trödel•talk 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
My bad on User:Cleared as filed i didn't look close and generally think changes on a user's page that one is disputing with as bad form - regardless of the policy involved. Trödel•talk 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Blind eyeEdit

I am frankly shocked that you're choosing to belittle me. I have raised a very serious concern. Nobody has said reading someone's contribs is wrong, far from it... what Locke is threatening is to treat me no better than a vandal, and "correct" things he doesn't like. Are you really endorsing that behavior? Is making sure that I am injured more important to you than encouraging a pleasant working atmosphere? You may not like me, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to Locke's bad intentions. -- Netoholic @ 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone "injured," but you do very little to encourage "a pleasant working atmosphere." You frequently force your preferences against consensus, using whatever type of manipulation is necessary to push them through. You treat fellow editors with utter contempt, and then you wonder why conflicts arise.
I don't believe that Locke's intentions are bad. Regardless of who's right, this is a content dispute, not harassment. Locke believes that you've made inappropriate changes to various templates pages, and has decided to revert them. This being a wiki, that's a valid option. In the end, the consensus-backed versions (whether yours or Locke's) shall prevail. If, in the meantime, edit warring reaches the point of major disruption and/or 3RR violation, all involved editors will be subject to temporary blocks. —David Levy 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not a content dispute over changes to templates... it is broad-spectrum harassment. He's followed be to an article (Leet), he's suddenly become a "fair use" image hunter and picked my user page to revert war on, and he got involved with a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_CVG that had nothing to do with the template content (it was about using tiny flag icons). This isn't about whether I made "inappropriate changes to various templates" as your defense of him states. I made a point of showing examples of harassment that had nothing to do with template content and the WP:AUM dispute. Please do not encourage that behavior by implying it's all right. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So Locke looked through your contributions and found some stuff with which he disagreed. Big deal. No offense, Neto, but I can understand why someone would scrutinize your edits. That isn't tantamount to stalking!
Oh, and that user page issue is an absolute joke. You've been gaming the system for months, so don't act as though Locke was the first person to take issue with (and eliminate) your deliberate policy violations. —David Levy 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page and DYK template - oops & thanxEdit

Hi, I am sorry about the above and thanks for correcting me. My cause for concern was that POTD etc. had a template for each day - all the features on main page except DYK are updated only once in a day and hence I was confused with your original edit summary. I hope you have informed User:AllyUnion of the change to Template:Did you know as mentioned in the instructions there. It is required as one of his bots helps in archiving purposes and any changes in the formatting throw it out of whack. --Gurubrahma 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on Main Page tweekEdit

I like how you fixed the heading problem in Did you know, and customized the heading on the main page to match the contents of the box. Way to go. --Go for it! 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The never ending storyEdit

Not that I'm so eager to continue with this. But I think it is not such a good idea to put "proposed policy" on WP:AUM. This initiates just another round of this useless dispute. I try to ignore this for now, as it is largely irrelevant because we will have conditionals in MediaWiki anyway (and Neto is the only one who opposes this). And no one is doing meta's just for fun. But we no longer break legs just to eliminate meta's. If this gets again to policy I will treat this under WP:IAR. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page draftEdit

Sorry about neglecting to get back to you. Point well-taken, and correct you are on the other skins. That said, whatever version of the Main Page (ever) emerges from this restyling process should be designed to work well with the default skin, which does prominently display "the free encyclopedia" right next to where it sits at the moment. I'll agree that the "xxxxx articles and counting" line does unduly promote the notion of quantity over quality. In any case, I don't feel particularly defensive over the whole "xxxx articles that anyone can edit" line, so you'll hear no more from me if you want to drop it.

Thanks for contacting me about it, though. :) The Tom 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/DraftEdit

Ah, yes, I completely forgot about that. Do you know if there are any plans to hide the title in the Classic and Cologne Blue skins? (It wouldn't really make sense to do that in Nostalgia.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

mad mania?Edit

Dear DL, are you planning to come to Wikimania this summer? I was checking out some of your work today, and notice you live in the area... Rest easy, +sj + 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. We could use some help making a cool site... and t-shirt collection :) +sj + 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Multilingual portal link for Main Page draft?Edit

Hi David. I noticed a while back that you removed something I added to the Main Page draft, namely the multilingual portal link. I was wondering if you would consider putting it back in somewhere? I do feel quite strongly about this, as I think there should be a link to from the Main Page, as many people arriving here through Google might only be aware of the country code wikipedia domains, and not be aware of the overarching web page that acts as a multilingual portal. What do you think? Like HereToHelp, I'm also going to be away this weekend. I was also thinking that it might be handy to have a point-by-point comparison made between the current Main Page and the final draft (however that is decided upon), as something to present for the election. Also, the actual replacement process will involve a lot of editing of templates. I've now wandered off the topic! Feel free to copy this over to the Main Page Draft talk page if needed Carcharoth 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Second search boxEdit

Some of the comments from folks voting for a second search box leads me to suspect that they don't realize that it's a Mainpage only thingy. Perhaps that should be added (Mainpage only) as part of the descriptors. If I wasn't following this I could easily misread this as a referendum for having a search box always available at the upper right. (nb: yes votes #7, #8 and #9) hydnjo talk 19:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory message.
Thanks but it renders badly (overlaps here but ok here) in Classic. I was thinking of something more direct such as adding (Mainpage only) to the selection links such as Second search box (Mainpage only). Perhaps I'm wrong on this but it seems that a several are voting for an upper right always search box. hydnjo talk 20:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the header to have consistant terminology with all. hydnjo talk 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

MonoBook search boxEdit

There is some discussion going on over at WP:VP/T#Massive Error Slight Mistake about highlighting the search box for MonoBook that you should take a look at. hydnjo talk 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit countsEdit

I'm not really rigorously checking them. If I see a red user page I check how many contribs that user has. There are no red yes votes. Feel free to check the rest of them. BrokenSegue 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did. After your comment I thought I should go and give the list another check through. I noticed that I had never seen that user name before and I check his/her edit count. Do you have some problem with my actions? Would you like me to do a more thorough check of the whole list? I just don't want to waste my time going through every entry (that's what I meant by non-thorough, I just look for red flags [no pun intended]) BrokenSegue 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at the other list sometime tomorrow (although I don't think it is actually my responsibility). BrokenSegue 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
All right, I checked through the yes votes and tagged a few. I won't argue with you because its just not worth it. BrokenSegue 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFAEdit

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism. Needless to say, if you notice me doing something not quite right or have questions about any of my actions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Still rough on policies, but...Edit

I'm working on it. I'm delving into the Wikipedia namespace, and will be getting to policies fairly soon.

I think it's about time I apologized for that episode of not assuming good faith. I was unaware of the AGF policy, until you quoted it to me, which at the time made no sense to me, considering most everybody here is anonymous. Just by looking at the list of new user accounts, you can tell that dozens upon dozens of them are sock puppets. There must be thousands of sockpuppet accounts in the user namespace. But on retrospect, after contemplating what Wikipedia would be like if nobody followed the AGF policy, I concluded it would be a rotten place. Plus true anonymity would go out the window. I just want you to know that it hasn't happened since, nor will it happen again. I follow Wikipedia's policies to the best of my knowledge, and still need to complete my awareness of them. In the meantime, thank you for your tolerance. I appreciate it.

By the way, while I'm here, I should express my opinion of the Main Page redesign project. It turned out pretty good. It went a bit too slow for my patience-level, but you've got to expect that with the management-by-committee approach. We didn't take it as far as it could have gone (I don't feel we were bold enough), but the design can always be improved later. For what it's worth, it was a job well done. It's sure to win the election by a landslide.

I'll see you at the debugging.
--Go for it! 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement DriveEdit

Hi there I have come to ask you to to support GNU Free Documentation License at the AID. After all it is what makes the Wikipedia free!!!

Main Page redesignEdit

If I was a sysop, I'd do these myself, but alas I am not, so I'll have to come to you.

We should protect the draft from editing during the election so the vote remains valid. Also, can you put a notice of the election (one it is underway) on the watchlists, like they did for ArbCom? Surely this is of equal importance as that. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I intend to protect the draft and the featured picture templates before the election begins. In my opinion, Main Page is a more logical location for the notice, given the fact that its users are the ones who would be most affected by the redesign. Also, this would be far less likely to annoy uninterested users. —David Levy 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Touche, the watchlists would get annoying, but many people have objected to a notice on the actual Main Page itself. We'll have to make so with the CBB and the Main Page talk (and possibly the Signpost).--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we made itEdit

That was an ordeal (the whole project). I assume you were the one to protect the draft - good job. Concerning your additions to the election page, I placed them at the beginning of the bottom section - there's a link at the top leading to that section. I tried to keep the election page as simple and easy to see/understand as possible. Thankyou and congratulations on participating in and developing the draft. I'm glad to have met you (you've taught me a lot about wikiness). Let's keep our fingers crossed, though I'm certain the draft will win. Cheers. --Go for it! 00:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to election pageEdit

I was in such a rush to finish the page before the start of the election, I didn't see your improvements to the opening paragraph, and was just trying to get past the edit conflict. Thanks for being patient. The page looks good. I like your improvements. --Go for it! 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out Heretohelp's announcement on the Community PortalEdit

We've been sporked. --Go for it! 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thanks David for your persistance in that often hostile environment of change. I believe that this project could and may have gone astray or even gone away were it not for your level headed guidance. You're a better man than most. hydnjo talk 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But sometimes David, I just feel like saying screw it. I can't believe all of the negativism (to be fair, with also all of the positivism) that is appearing. Where the hell were all of those suggestions during the design process? An attitude of I guess I wont say anything until it's done and then complain! is showing its side at this time. I would not have expected the amount of opposition that this proposal is receiving given the remarkable patience and compromise thet you have always shown during the crafting process. Again you are demonstrating remarkable restraint - a perseverance that sometimes eludes me. ;-) hydnjo talk 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
With some thirty hours into this there are about thirty users that feel that this was all for naught. Color me naive but I find this unacceptable. I expected several oppose votes but not this visceral opposition to a project that has been thought out and considered to the extent that has been the case with this Mainpage redesign. My personal and unspoken target was to achieve 90% to 95% approval. Having an approval in the high 70's is profoundly disappointing to me. My response would be to leave the Mainpage unaltered, perhaps another attempt at some future time might be appropriate but for now, leave it alone. 78% or so isn't overwhelming. Draw your consensus line where you like but from my perspective, it has not been achieved. I will vote to Support. hydnjo talk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You are as usual exactly right on. I was only counting the votes and not analyzing theit content. I'm sorry for my rant last night, I was in kind of a funky mood and shouldn't have being doing anything other than fixing grammar and comma faults. The new Mainpage continues to be favorable by a majority near 80% and you're exactly right as to the opposition. Again, my warmest regards for leading the way and consistantly being the voice of reason throughout this process. hydnjo talk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Netoholic's 3RR report against meEdit

Could you possibly close Neto's request to block me for violating WP:3RR? (See here: WP:AN/3RR#User:Madchester)

It seems that Neto's trying to retaliate against me, because the straw poll I started (Talk:The_Amazing_Race_9#Straw_poll_on_removal_of_country_flags) currently isn't going in his favour. Seems like a rather poor faith nomination.

Thanks, --Madchester 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page banner textEdit

I edited it because "English language" is used as a compound modifier. Neutralitytalk 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The new age of WPEdit

It is interesting to review how a Mainpage redesign came about when I was a new user. Tom- just popped in with a new Mainpage design (or so it seemed to me) on December 23, 2004. It took a couple of weeks for it to settle down but settle down it did. Compare that (please review) to the angst surrounding this redesign implementation. I'm reminded of the proverbial race horse designed by committee as I watch some of the goings on here. The Mainpage should be designed and agreed upon by five to ten three to five dedicated "improvers" and put in place. (that's a period). Some things just need to be done almost individually, can you imagine the melody and lyrics of Imagine having a go through this democratic process? At the end of it all we'll have a few hundred satisfied ratifiers and a hundred or so dissatisfied (read pissed-off) voters. Better it seems to me for a few folks to go off to the side, design a new Mainpage format and put it in place. There is no rule providing for the current procedure with its l-o-n-g time-span and straw-polls over the many details. Garnering input is fine but then go off and compile and implement based on that input and your collective judgment. There is no right or wrong here, it's about personal taste and on that note I'll just shut-up now. hydnjo talk 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the process should be simpler than this, but it seems that Wikipedia has grown too large for that level of boldness to be accepted or even tolerated. Therefore, it's better to get as much of the tumult out of the way as possible before replacing the main page (to prevent innocent bystanders from being dragged in). —David Levy 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't concede that point at all. The larger we become then the more likely that any controversial (subjective) subject will achieve about a 50-50 or so acclaim. It may go 70-30 or so but unless it's DRASTIC it'll not go above 80-20 (taboo subjects etc.). It's becoming like the US political arena, nobody for national office gets anything over 51- 60% or so, no matter what. There are some who will vote in the minority just because it is the minority. hydnjo talk 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but we have to work within the boundaries of system that has emerged, however flawed it may be. Had we simply implemented the new main page design, it would have been reverted within minutes. The current climate has rendered a heated debate unavoidable, so it's preferable to confine it to an arena other than the main page proper (where people who simply want to access the encyclopedia would be affected). —David Levy 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Article countEdit

Article count in but CSS delete-able, how Solomon like is that!  ;-) hydnjo talk 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting page vandalizedEdit

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page was vandalized by an anon here, time and IP: 20:04, 8 March 2006 (EST, so your time stamp should sync). I'm uncomfortable trying to pull it back in myself - help. hydnjo talk 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's his fingerprint, I think the diff is all of the missing stuff. hydnjo talk 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I just spent almost two hours cleaning up the mess made by the newbies who followed the Digg link. I started with the last good version, and then I manually added each new comment individually (refactoring and tagging all the while). Meanwhile, the edits kept coming! I finally managed to catch up a few minutes ago. —David Levy 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's hoping that their attention span is... well, you know. hydnjo talk 03:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign vote barnstarEdit

For your tireless efforts in maintaining, watching, explaining, and otherwise helping the Main Page Redesign vote, I'd like to offer you this barnstar. Fieari 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New Main Page ProposalEdit

You seem very active on the discussion page there and (possibly unknown to yourself) we've debated over a few of the same issues. I'd very much appreciate your view on this idea (it's at the bottom of the section) - it's yet another idea for resolving the article count dispute in the new page design. - Drrngrvy 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Looking through his block log, I noticed a high prevalence of your name. Surely if he's being truly disruptive, any of 800+ other administrators would be happy examine the facts and perform the block if they agree with your analysis. I attempted to contact you first via IRC but didn't get an answer, so this is a heads-up. Once again, next time a situation like this occurs, get somebody else to handle it, please. — Mar. 11, '06 [07:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>


I am opening a case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration against you. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin boardEdit

I don't need you to remind me of the 3RR, which I have no intention of violating. I am, however, disheartened that you would exploit the timing and implicitly threaten me in this manner, given the fact that I was willing to overlook your 3RR violations at the main page draft.

Don't be disheartened. We're on the same side. You should lighten up a bit.
I'm sorry, but "I have one revert left, so I win!" is not the most appropriate justification. Can we please not play this game today?

Yes, a vote is taking place. But it is not a majority/plurality vote, and no "debate" has broken out as to whether or not it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we never make decisions based strictly upon numbers.

I never said it was.
You've implied it. Why else would we display the percentages?
And the debate isn't about whether/whether not, but exactly how the votes and the comments are going to be interpretted.
There is no such debate. The discussion in question was initiated due to your unfamiliarity with our process. That isn't intended as an insult, incidentally.
That could turn out to be an interesting discussion. The process does not seem to be well documented anywhere, and the most detailed description I've gotten from you is that it is a matter of "common sense". Well, that's pretty subjective, so there's a lot of room for argument, and I'm just concerned by that, and want to lock down the details of how this works.
I suggest that you observe any of the project pages on which such discussions occur.

Furthermore, have you actually stopped to consider why it's beneficial to include these statistics? What difference does this premature tally make, and why is it important for readers to be made aware of it? Is this supposed to influence their opinions? If so, that's unfair. If not, what's the point? Why not simply inform them that the discussion is taking place and invite them to participate?

To improve community involvement, and increase voter turn out to as high a degree as possible. That's the only way to optimize feedback. The more people who vote, and more importantly, the more people who comment, the better we'll know what modifications are needed.
You didn't answer my question. I understand why it's beneficial to advertise the election, but what is the benefit of including the premature numerical vote tally?
You still haven't answered my question, and your latest edit was a reversion. (We define reverting as "undoing the essence of a change," not as "restoring an earlier version word-for-word.")

My wording mentioned both discussion and voting. Yours includes no mentions of "discussion" (excepting a false indication that the "comments" might not be considered), but it includes five instances of the word "vote" or a derivative. What sort of message do you suppose this sends? We've had several respondents who believed that this was a purely numerical vote, and you're helping to perpetuate this misunderstanding. —David Levy 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I had not read in the context of the comments not being considered. Though I don't have a clue what the process to be used for weighting them will be. Hence the statement. I was hoping to get more people involved in the discussion.
Again, this is not a subject of "debate." No offense, but your unfamiliarity with the established protocols and desire to codify everything are indicative of your inexperience.

By the way, could you please point me to the discussions where it was decided that the announcement would not be displayed on the Main Page? It seems to me, for the election to be as solid as it can in the face of critics' opposition, that awareness of it needs to be as high as we can make it. We could be fairly certain that most everyone will be aware of it if it were announced on the Main Page. I've pushed that concept from the start, but it seems to have been casually cast aside. If you would apply your assertiveness in that direction, it would certainly improve the overall fairness of the election, because it will prevent most if not all users from being blindsided by the change.

I agree that the discussion should have been announced on the main page, but this was opposed by a number of individuals. (It was not formally "decided," and I don't have time to search the archives.) The turnout, however, has been very strong.

The only other issue that remains that I can think of is whether or not the current turn out was a random sampling (representative sampling) of the community. My guess is that we are not far off from it being a reflection of the community as a whole.

I agree. The breakdown has remained fairly consistent throughout the process, even when we were inundated with votes from members of the Digg community.

But there is only one way to find out, and that is to open this up all the way with an announcement on the Main Page. We need to be as sure as we can that everybody knows about it.

"Everybody"? That will never happen.

And remember, we're on the same side. I didn't coordinate five rounds (rounds 2 through 6) of feedback/development sessions for nothing.

No offense, but your "coordination" was stifling productivity. You placed yourself in charge, and you dictated exactly what edits would be made and when they would be made. Frankly, the draft that I discovered upon my arrival was a mess (and it drew overwhelming opposition from the community). It was only when I complained about your behavior that you decided to "open" the draft to editing (which you never had the right to restrict in the first place), and this is when things started to come together. I didn't fix the draft, mind you; I convinced you to allow the community to fix it.
Before I came along, there was no productivity. The project was dead in the water.
And after you came along, the project was steered off-course and nearly capsized.
If you go back and look, you'll find that when I started work on the Main Page redesign, I simply carried on the same basic method that was being used before I got there. --Go for it! 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If that's so, you copied an incorrect, anti-wiki method.
And I didn't open the draft because of your complaints. I don't even remember you complaining.
Okay, but it's a heck of a coincidence that you declared an "open editing session" less than two hours after I complained. I noted the correlation once before, and you didn't attempt to refute it.
I opened it up based on results obtained in the Help Page redesign.
What you fail to understand is that you never possessed the authority to restrict editing in the first place (nor did anyone else). This is a wiki.
The help page was open, even though there was a draft, so I bypassed the draft project and went to work directly on the Help Page itself. That page was revamped in a matter of days, due to a collaborative approach - and a lot of users joined in. On the other side, after Round 6's feedback session, the Main Page Redesign was bogged down in the consensus-building approach, which has dragged on for weeks. Productivity exploded during Round 6's mult-draft feedback session, which I implemented,
You attempted to transform the round into a "full-blown election" (with the "winner" becoming the new main page), and you pinned this shift on me (because I forked our draft into two versions)! HTH and I had to convince you that the independent drafts should be considered only as presentations of potential design elements (which we had been doing since long before I forked our draft). You generated a great deal of confusion by assigning seemingly official status to some (but not all) of the independent drafts, thereby creating the appearance that they were finalists in winner-take-all competition (which is exactly what you unilaterally deemed it).
and was stiffled again during the next open editing session due to excessive reversion. --Go for it! 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. "Productivity" is not defined by the number of changes or variations, and at no point were users prevented from creating personal drafts.

I want this thing to go through without any hitches just as much as you do.

Yes, but I feel as though I've had to go out of my way to prevent you from derailing the project (again, no offense). For example, can you imagine what would have happened if we'd followed your plan for a multi-draft election? The roughly 25% support for keeping the current main page would have constituted the plurality, with the remaining 75% split among a dozen slightly different redesigns and those "conditional support" comments ("The draft is almost perfect, but I won't support it unless you change one thing.").
But you are ignoring your own position that you have adamantly proclaimed time and again: that Wikipedia is not a democracy.
I cited the numbers for the sake of convenience. My point is that the corresponding lack of consensus would have killed the redesign.
The consensus is not determined by vote counts, but by interpretation of the results. So if there were 6 drafts almost identical to each other, and those got more support than the Main Page, the Main Page would be replaced -- probably by and amalgamation of the six drafts. --Go for it! 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
1. We took care of that before the election. 2. You're missing my latter point. We have numerous "conditional support" (id est "neutral") votes, and we would have received many, many more if people had seen multiple drafts and wondered why their minor preferences had not been included among the choices. 3. You're failing to consider the impracticality of determining which combinations of elements to include, explaining such an elaborate setup to the community and expecting people to view and compare a dozen or more designs.
By the way, the project could not, by definition, be derailed. Pushed into another round of development, maybe, but "derailed" is nothing but hot air.
I believe that some of your ideas had the potential to generate enough apathy and opposition to render the project nonviable.
The multi-draft election proposal that I finally supported was one in which the winner would go up against the Main Page, thus avoiding the problem of vote dilution (not that vote dilution makes a bit of difference in the consensus building process).
That's the idea to which you eventually switched, and it made absolutely no sense. We did almost exactly the same thing, except instead of employing the winner-take-all method that you advocated (in which 30 votes for one design would have been worth more than 20 votes for each of four highly similar designs), we combined the most popular elements of the various drafts in the most logical manner possible.
The benefit of such a preliminary run-off would be that talent would have come out of the woodwork, and we probably would have wound up with a lot better design than we have now.
No offense, but that's utterly preposterous. Again, we did almost exactly the same thing, but without the astounding absurdity of declaring the specific, seemingly random combination of elements that received the most votes "the winner."
But one problem with the current polling method, is that people change the draft(s), while the voting is taking place, even when the drafts are protected. This risks rendering the results of the poll that much harder to interpret.
How so? This is a wiki, so respondents shouldn't expect their support or opposition to count toward a precise design that will never be changed. By doing so now (instead of after the election), we actually provide the opportunity to reevaluate the proposed main page before it's implemented (assuming that it will be).
In this case, though, since it's just a page of text and colors at stake, I don't think anyone is going to take defeat that seriously. And the old version is still going to be made available, so it's not worth fighting over. Because of this there will unlikely be any major problems in terms of opposition to install the new design. Our job is almost done.
--Go for it! 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We merely differ on approach, and have some philosophical differences, but those are rather minor, seeing that the project is moving forward regardless. We shouldn't be draining our resources fighting each other, correcting each other every step of the way. It's counterproductive.

I agree, but I also believe that I'm right. Why don't you stop "correcting" me?
You're the conservative one, remember? I'm the bold one. It's you who steps in to bring me in check, after I've plowed ahead in one direction or another. I've never monitored your discussion page. That's been you all along. I think it's a waste of time. I'd rather be editing. Even this protracted discussion goes against my favored appraoch, which is to develop, not endlessly argue over process. And that's where we differ: you seem to be process-oriented, while I just want to get as much done in as little time as possible. If others want to grab a page as their own and revert the hell out of it, let them. Wikipedia is huge. I'll just go off and create or overhaul three more. --Go for it! 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what most of the above is supposed to mean, but I will note that there's a difference between "boldness" and "brashness." I've made many bold edits in the past year (without prior discussion), but deliberately bypassing clear opposition for the purpose of "plowing ahead" with one's plans is irresponsible. —David Levy 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of pushing for an announcement on the Main Page? Come on, it's the opposition's main argument ("that the poll wasn't fair because it was not announced where everyone could see it").

--Go for it! 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "afraid," but we need to pick our battles. As I said, we've received a very strong turnout. —David Levy 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's right. It's how the the overall war (campaign) is fought (run) that matters. And that includes advertising. Why do you think I upgraded the Community Portal? --Go for it! 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I didn't answer your question about the poll reports is because it was buried in the middle of this book you are writing, and I missed it. So here's the answer: Why do they report numbers in any election? It's the obvious information that people want to know. It's much more convenient to check the community portal than to go back to the Main Page Redesign every time and scroll through to the end of each voting section to see the ordinal number on the last vote in each section. That's what you are forcing the curious to do. I don't think it's right that you are censoring reporting of the poll results. --Go for it! 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll results reporting replyEdit

David, the difference is that actual governmental election results aren't made public, but Wikipedia's are. So how many users go there to check the results? My point is why make them go through the extra hassle of doing it that way? --Go for it! 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The compromise you and Heretohelp have arrived at is fine by me. --Go for it! 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning an IP banEdit

Hello, I would like to request that be banned from wikipedia indefinatly, only because this single IP address belongs to two different school districts thus giving over 5000 different users that IP address, which is why there are such instances of vandalism from it. I happen to be a student at one of these schools and respectfully request that you ban all editing for this IP address.

Thank you for your considerations. 3/14/06

Question concerning change made to the Main_Page draftEdit

Hi, I know it has been a long time since this happened, but I noticed that the main_page draft that is currently up for vote used to have a small encyclopedia in the background of the header ( example: ). I know that a lot of people (including myself) thought that it made the page look more professional and that version with the background stayed for a really long time due to everyone's satisfaction with it. Basically, what I am wondering is why it was removed by you after the mass majority liked it there. Thank you for your time in reading this. I hope to read your response soon.

Sincerly, Noneloud 04:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke ColeEdit


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I oppose increasing their prominance. Phil Sandifer 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole ArbitrationEdit

I reverted your comments there, you might want to read the instructions on the top of the page. If you're presenting evidence then it needs to go in your section and not in mine. If you're presenting comment or discussion that needs to go on the talk page. Might also want to ask one of the clerks if you need assistance. I would have just moved it but you had sandwiched it in my section so I reverted for you to recover and correct on your own. --Wgfinley 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sister projects on new Main PageEdit

Hi! Congatulations on the new Main Page. It's really nice.

Please, however, fix the sister project links at the bottom of the page as per the discussion here. The new Main Page is fantastic, but on this particular detail the proper way to have done things should have been to have the template transcluded into the proposed Main Page, all to provide an alternative template that people could keep updated.

In any case, since you an admin, it would be great if you could transclude the template in, and make whatever modifications to it people think are necessary. Dovi 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sister projectsEdit

Please see my comments on Main page talk and on the template talk.

"The free library" is a Wikisource decision (in all languages, by the way), not a Wikipedia decision. "The free encyclopedia" is how Wikipedia itself appears on Sister links from other projects.

"The free library" was already discussed and changed on the Sister projects template months ago. It needs no further discussion.

As for the code itself, the new code appears sloppy in Firefox. I don't think that most people who voted on the Main Page even realized the template was even being changed (would have been better to transclude the template into the proposed main page and then make changes locally, instead of ending up with a degraded template). I suggest restoring the old code, and then making whatever small but correct changes in wording appeared in the proposed Main page. Dovi 09:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


The free library" is a Wikisource decision (in all languages, by the way), not a Wikipedia decision.
Yes, they get to select their slogan, but we don't have to feature it on our main page.

I find that quite rude. Perhaps you will change the other project's logo's, too? (Right now we are having ongoing logo discussions at Wikisource.)

"The free library" has achieved unusually strong across-the-board consensus at all language version of Wikisource. The reason there was very little discussion for changing it on the template is precisely becuase it is a Wikisource decision. As for Wikibooks, it is not in any way meant to be an open library.

I've posted a protest notice at your decision at the English Wikisource Scriptorium. Maybe we'll change our Wikipedia link to something descriptive and attractive like "Free-content articles". Dovi 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dovi is correct. Wikibooks is not the free library. Wikisource contains both source texts and data tables (like Wikisource:Astronomical events) and is the free library. I hope that Main Page will again read "the free library" for Wikisource. --Kernigh 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)

David, you did an absolutely outstanding job on the new Main Page (which I voted for along with 600 others). On this one detail we disagree, and you asked for discussion to be moved to Main Page talk. I did that, even though I strongly disagree with you that discussion should even be needed for a slogan that Wikisource itself has adopted, no different that "The free encyclopedia" for Wikipedia as used in all "sister project" templates. The consensus at Main Page talk is that the slogan is descriptive, accurate, and creates no confusion with Wikibooks (actually, it helps). It is possible to nit-pick any slogan or description, including "The free encyclopedia," and I understand that you yourself disagree and don't like "The free library". But I entirely fail to see why it should be your decision to make! Now that there has been plenty of discussion, please do us at Wikisource the courtesy of changing it back. And enjoy the rest of your truly outstanding Main page! Dovi 22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page accessibilityEdit

I wrote a primer at Talk:Main_Page#Headings_on_new_main_page on how to do section links in reference to the new Main page accessibility issue raised by Graham. An anon there suggested that only header links can be 'jumped to' by screen-readers. I don't know if that is the case or not, but I included information on how to use such header links or id links. It'd probably be worthwhile to do a separate 'redesign' on these 'hidden' links with input from the subset of the community that uses them. --CBDunkerson 21:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. I was writing some comments in regards to the Main page accessibility issue at about the same time you were. If you look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 next to the current main page I think I've gotten the display pretty close. About the only difference I can see is that on my version with the header links there is slightly less white space between the box title bars and the text of each segment. We could probably tweak to get exactly the same space, but I'm hoping it is close enough. Differences from the current page can be seen here. --CBDunkerson 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More Wikisource...Edit

Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.

You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.

We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.

Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


You're not going to take a nap are you! Well then answer the "slings and arrows", damn, you're devoted, you remind me of a younger me. I'm tyrying not to be so repetitious, congratulations again for keeping your cool when others (me) would have flipped out way long ago. When I feel like striking out I'll remember your composure during this ... this... adventure. Thank you for showing me a better way, you are an inspiration. I'll stop now, lest your head ... enlarges. Our sincere thanks for your example, Heidi n Joe


Hey David,

I've been spending the better part of a day trying to find out who to talk with about a certain subject problem. I noticed that you were known for working with templates so I just decided to go directly to you. (whether it's actual help or showing my the right person to talk to) Okay, I recently noticed that the German Wikipedia had a nifty feature in which the coordinates of any location are inserted into the header of an article. Here is an example: [63]. I've found out that this is not possible in the English Wiki and that I'll need to discuss this with our community to see if it can get implimented. (Evidently it deals with CSS...I really don't know what that is) Someone mentioned that I should copy the German template and create a new one, which I did (found here: Template:CoorHeader. Now all that needs to be done, is to impliment the CSS into the main wikipedia code.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I tried the best I could. Now, would you know exactly what I should do in this situation? I'm gathering you've been in this situation before where you must present something to the wiki community. Thanks in advance. Sean WI 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, David! I did what you suggested, and if you feel up to it maybe you could lend your support at the proposal page. Thanks again. Sean WI 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New project: April fools pageEdit

Some users appear to want to prepare a mock up of the front page for display there on April Fools day. Perhaps you should take a look and steer it in the right direction, so that it remains tasteful and appropriate. It's a good idea though, and fun, and warrants your attention. --Go for it! 11:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)



I know this is the wrong place to report 3RR violations, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and was unable to understand the format required on the 3RR page. I would like to report 3RR violation of the page by the user DickClarkMises. If you go to the page, you will be able to see that he has reverted the page more than 4 times in the past 24 hours. Thank you for your time.


Main page paddingEdit

See User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 (note I used style="font-weight: bold;" instead of '''text'''; I suspect using the Wiki-markup will work better on older/less advanced browsers (since it equates to <b>text</b>)). —Locke Coletc 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Header font on Main PageEdit

I just want to thank you for changing all the header fonts to sans-serif on the main page! Now I can sleep at night... --Jeremy 01:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-CSS expert needed on Main PageEdit

Where do I (or could you?) post a request for a wikimedia-experienced web dev to come clean up our amateur webstandards-code? I know enough about css to know that things are wrong (primarily excessive duplication of embedded styles), but am not experienced enough to fix. thanks. --Quiddity 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be forgeting that this is the ENGLISH encyclopaedia, i dont see a place saying American ENGLISH, The english are from england we speak english and are english our language is english so english is english.--Matthew Fenton 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pic of the dayEdit

As of a week ago, I filled the pic of the day to a month in advance. This was to assist the person in charge of that department. Since then, the buffer has been rapidly slipping away. I thought you might like to know, as once I achieved my goal of establishing the buffer, I moved on to other projects. --Go for it! 23:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I count 4 of (almost) the same edit within 40 minutes at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If the first one is might be considered a revert, that makes 4 reverts. Could you check into it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page bannerEdit

I just want you to be aware that there is a Main Page banner template. Whenever Wikipedia, as a community, has something to say to the public, it's on the Main Page. It's been there since 2004 and is edit protected (does not apply to you, of course). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SisterProjects templateEdit

Hi! I'm preparing to bring the disagreement over project slogans to the Communications Committee weekly meeting, and I've asked for input on the talk page where the discussion had been occurring, but perhaps it might be better if you could respond either by e-mail or on my wp talk page to these three questions:

  • On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's slogan?
  • On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's description?
  • Is the SisterProject template on Wikipedia using slogans or descriptions for all projects?

- Amgine 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

April Fool'sEdit

Hi David; just thought I'd drop by and say thanks for working to keep the main page looking professional. I was blissfully ignorant of all of last year's foolishness until after the fact, but I'm hoping that we can avoid that kind of ridiculous behavior this year. Thanks for your efforts. Oh, and I hope you get a chance to sleep tonight =). —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 06:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate your efforts in keeping April Fools joke out of the encyclopedia.-gadfium 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Just remember WP:3RR, you're at your third revert there. Don't worry, I won't re-revert or ask anyone else to do the same. — mark 17:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR doesn't apply to reversions of vandalism. —David Levy 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi DavidEdit

Template:totd appears primarily on user pages. You don't mind if I restore this April's Fools announcement of the Tip of the day project, do you? --Go for it! 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add any vandalism. I simply reverted your removal of a minor April fool's joke on the Talk page of the Main page. Although the talk page is still part of Wikipedia, it is not encyclopedic per se, and Wikipedia doesn't have an official policy banning April Fool's jokes (though last year's joke went pretty far). I don't think a one sentence message saying that editors are eligible for monetary compensation for their work (which links directly to a site saying that it was a joke in big letters) is vandalism. Also, if you are going to discuss the topic, please actually use your own words and discuss it with me, rather than adding some standard "vandalism" template of which I am undeserving. I did not add nonsense; this isn't "second level warning" (the template used) worthy.
Yom 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

SVG imagesEdit

I see you reverted from X mark.svg to Red x.png on {{historical}}, stating that "That image displays improperly for most users" in your edit summary. MediaWiki converts SVG images to PNG thumbnails when they're used, so I don't think it has to do with the format in particular. Could you be more specific? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for helping to keep a lid on the April Fools crap. Last year was a complete mess. Hopefully next year we can come up with even more odd but true things to showcase on the Main Page. --mav 01:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Azerbaijani languageEdit

David, on your edit of March 19th, on Template:Wikipedialang you seem to have deleted the Azerbaijani from the list of languages with more than 1000 articles. Can you please correct this. Thanks in advance. md 12:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Main PageEdit

Hello Dave. I'm here to say, calm it! I read through the 'April Fool's' saga on the Main Page talk page, and you really didn't do yourself any favours there. Now I see you as a grumpy old man, ranting and raving about young whippersnappers. I hereby award you this Calm It! Barnstar. -- 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: United Paramount Network or UPN???Edit

And your point is...what? I still don't see how it is "factually incorrect" to use the full name instead of the initials or acronyms, because the meaning is still THE SAME. I choose not to "drink the Kool-Aid" and still refer to it as what it still means. And to me, it is factually correct to use the full name. In the end, should it really matter which one we use? I guess we've agreed to disagree.
Rollosmokes 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I left it alone for a while, and I brought it back. Using the full original name shouldn't hurt anyone, and let me reiterate again: IT IS NOT OUTDATED INFORMATION, even though the full original name isn't being used regularly. No matter if it reads UPN or United Paramount Network, the use of either is still FACTUALLY CORRECT. Get off your high horse. Rollosmokes 18:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be the only one who actually GIVES A DARN about this ridiculous issue. This was never a problem until YOU TURNED IT INTO ONE. I don't care if you're an administrator or not, this is childish. Whether it's the full name or the shortened acronym, should it matter which one is used??? My wife, who works in publishing, agrees with me on this issue as a matter of offering information of factual, historical value. Without it, the meaning of the initialism can be left open for debate and interpretation.
So, hypothetically speaking, if UPN doesn't stand for "United Paramount Network", then what does it stand for? How about, say, "U Pick a N***a" (a direct quote from a line said by the actor/comedian Paul Mooney in the 1999 film Bamboozled)?
David, you may be an administrator, but you need to stop abusing your "authority". Rollosmokes 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

After your last check of one of my edits, where I inadvertently capitalized the first letter of the second word, and reading your comments on what I SHOULD HAVE DONE, I'm even more convinced now: you are a self-absorbed, ego-driven, bombastic blowhard. You could have just done the edit and made no comment at all. Rollosmokes 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I need you to interveneEdit

The redesign for the Community Portal has gotten out of hand and I want your advice. Go for it! seems to have squared off against Quiddity with --Aude myself, and some others involved. There's been some heated discussions on Gfi!'s editing habits that border on personal attacks. After the CP was reverted to a version a couple months old, Gfi! started up a poll to see which one of three drafts to put on the CP. I don't want to lock the designs, but Gfi! and Kmf have been editing them and that invalidates the vote (an idea he was so adamant about back during the old MP redesign). Gfi! sent me an e-mail, basically asking for me to scheme on how to make the design we both like win. But it's not about winning; it's making everyone happy. He rufuses to understand that.

In short, it's a mess. But your input always seemed logical back in the days of the Main Page redesign, so I want you to see if you can please sort this out.--HereToHelp 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No scheming here. I was merely trying to avert a revision war. We could do without one of those right now. The poll has remained civil, though Kmf164 is sure in a competitive mood. Nothing harmful, she's just determined to give the other page a fighting chance. So nothing to worry about. Here's the situation: the Community Portal design that Heretohelp and I had worked on on the Community Portal page itself was for the most part done. Completed. I was ready to move on to another non-Wikipedia project and had already put in the order to speedy delete most of my user page subpages as part of my wrap-up. Then someone reverted the Community Portal to a version that was there last October or so (I didn't actually check the date), and someone else locked the page. So I called for a vote to specifically overturn the reversion. And that's pretty much it. The other redesign got thrown into the fray. Once the design that was reverted is restored to the Community Portal, then another redesign project can commence. This is merely about what page should be on the Community Portal until its next design project is completed. The current page that's on there is a travesty. I just want to get this over with so I can move on to something else. I'd like to try out my newfound HTML skills on a web-page of my own. I'll still be around, but I will most likely cut my involvement down to a few hours per week. I think I'm over my Wikiholic addiction! Sincerely, --Go for it! 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it looks like Kmf's been busy on the Community Portal itself, so it doesn't look as bad as it did after the reversion. She's tidied up the top, including the CBB a bit. But the reversion still needs to be reverted. --Go for it! 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a number of non-wiki matters to deal with, and I lack the available time to involve myself in this dispute. Sorry. —David Levy 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Locking the drafts would prevent a revert war, but taht would halt the improvement of the drafts. Let's just calm down, both in how we communicate and how we do the poll. That way, we won't need the help of outside editors.--HereToHelp 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page editEdit

How is it that Robin Patterson was able to edit the Main page header today? He doesn't seem to be listed at WP:LA. Thanks, hydnjo talk 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Robin has been a sysop since 4 August 2004. He's listed in the "Semi-active" section. —David Levy 21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Duhh! Thanks, hydnjo talk 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:WikipediaSisterEdit

Please know that I did not mean my frustration today to be directed at your comments. I am normally more careful in proofreading my responses and I should not have indented that as I did :P I do not know what I was thinking responding to anything at all on that page. My attempts to slowly back away weren't that great either. My frustration was truly directed at my own mistake and the thought that it could restart the whole debacle. I am truly more upset about the way the previous disscusion went than the result; I will very upset if I have caused a repitition. I was very happy about the lack of activity and do not know why I thought an easy answer existed after all the past discussion. Although I do not appreciate all of your views, I have never thought you were trying to drive me out of the disscussion. I never felt personally criticized by you either. I certainly believe you should be able to share your opinion on the matter. I hope you can understand my comments as they were intended rather how they first appeared.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, David Levy. I will bring your comments to the Communications Committee discussion on this cross-project issue. - Amgine 06:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The committee did not reach any decision regarding localised logos, descriptive texts, or self-identifying slogans. Some members of the committee would like to draw up a style guide, which would cover this issue. Because no decision was reached the discussion is ongoing. - Amgine 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My rfaEdit

About my RFA... dude, don't even think that I'm upset with you for opposing. My edit summaries have often been exercises in futility, silliness, and anger, and I can understand if you think my maturity isn't up to administrator level. About template:Funky, though... When I made it, I had no idea that {{for}} even existed. After being informed of that, I tried merging my change into the template, but when that was shot down, I recreated my template rather than edit war. I simply didn't know that templates shouldn't be forked (and, looking at the many variations of, say, {{User firefox}}--can you blame me? [probably =P]). However, you might note that I was pretty civil during the discussion, and I didn't stand in the way of the process (other than voting keep, and I have a slinking suspicion that that isn't the reason you voted "oppose").

I know that templates are your area of expertise, and so you probably think that I'm pretty dumb for not knowing any of this. (You're right!  ) I don't know if that's why you voted oppose, though, or if it was something else. In any case, I have just answered the additional questions on my RFA, and as such I'm requesting that you read the answers I wrote and decide whether your oppose vote should stand. Anyways, I totally forgive you for voting oppose ;), and I hope that you'll act in whatever you feel the best interests of the encyclopedia are after reading my answers. In any case, thanks a bunch for your time, consideration, and cool-editor-ness. Have a nice day! Matt Yeager (Talk?) 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote.

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! (Oh, and dude... seriously, try archiving sometime. It's good for you.  ) Matt Yeager (Talk?) 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Main PageEdit

==Wikipedia's main (home) page==
I visit many sites and it is always a pleasure to return to Wikipedia's (insert description) main page. I'm sure that some will find fault, nothing is perfect. But, for a main page designed by the "folks", it's pretty damn good. So, you "slings and arrows" people please realize that every damn pixel has been discussed and agreed upon. Please consider that your point may have been considered before. Please don't impulsively change some aspect thinking that it hasn't been thought of before now. This design has been compromised willingly to assure that virtually all browsers displaying a variety of skins and at many resolutions "feels" and "looks" as the designers have wanted. All we ask is that y'all be as considerate as the folks that have been here before your arrival. hydnjo talk 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


User:Rollosmokes keeps reverting my edits that he claims are "trivial." I tried contributing to WTXF-TV, but he reverted them every time. I need your help please, he is only doing this to make me mad. CoolKatt number 99999 08:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Coolkatt's edits and additions are trivial information which, in my opinion, takes away from the main focus of the article. I've already told Coolkatt this info should be placed in the Fox Broadcasting entry, or in an article on the 1994-95 affiliation changes. Or, in a compromise, as a seperate section within WTXF-TV, but not in the main history portion. Rollosmokes 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not interweave commentsEdit

In this edit, you replied to another user in a debate on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please do not interweave your comments into the comments of another person like that. It may make sense to you but it destroys the attribution of the original comment and makes the conversation impossible for the rest of us to follow. If you absolutely feel that you must rebut someone's comment point by point, please recap their points below and interweave your rebuttal into your recap. Leave their original comments alone. Rossami (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I used to do (complete with color-coding), but several users complained. (You're the first to complain about the interweaving.) Is there a specific guideline that I could follow and point people to? (I was unable to find one.) If not, one should be proposed. —David Levy 14:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is such a page. I can't remember where I saw it, though. It was a year or more ago. Give me a few days and I'll try to find you the link. And I agree - if we can't find it, let's draft it. If it does turn out to be duplicative, we can always merge it later. Rossami (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I searched a number of places and couldn't find it. I've been bold and added it to Wikipedia:Etiquette in the section about Talk pages. We'll see if someone points us to a better page for the concept. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Having now seen your color-coded pattern in action (on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion), I think I understand why the other folks objected. It comes across as very adversarial to make such point-by-point rebuttals. Are they strictly necessary? Is there another way to frame your response which makes all your required points but which does not come across in such an aggressive fashion? Would it, for example, have been equally effective to reply to Pcb21's latest comment as follows?

Perhaps it was a mistake to undelete the category. To-reiterate why I did that:
The deletion debate took place on the assumption that it was a duplicate of the disambiguation category, which as you point out it is clearly not. So the deletion debate had no particular value. Deletion pages are not somehow a "greater authority" whose mistakes cannot be corrected.
That the deletion debate took that direction is partly my fault. I did not document the new category well enough and so it began to be misused.
I should've have spent more effort on it.
You are both experienced Wikipedians and know that to suggest Deletion Review as an appropriate place to make a structural alteration to Wikipedia (however minor) really is not a flyer. The debate is always about counting the number of votes and nothing else!
But of course no-one is paying me to improve Wikipedia so I see little point in butting heads with David who must have his own reasons to maintain the status quo (though he has kept them to himself so far). I will find another way to contribute which involves draining less time on obscure project talk pages. Pcb21 Pete 12:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree [that the deletion debate was a duplicate of the category], and I don't appreciate having my input (and that of others) dismissed by someone who believes that he's entitled to overrule community consensus. "Deletion pages are not a "greater authority" [but neither] are you a "greater authority" whose wisdom allows him to unilaterally decide when mistakes have been made. Again, feel free to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
WP:DRV "considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." Why do you insist upon bypassing the appropriate process? You are, however, correct in stating that you never took the necessary steps to "make a structural alteration to Wikipedia." You should have {{proposed}} your setup (and you still could).
I've repeatedly explained my reasoning (which is shared by others). You, conversely, decided to simply ignore consensus and once again create your setup without any discussion. —David Levy 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion still reads as if there is prior bad blood between the two of you. It seems to be a somewhat antagonistic discussion. But avoiding the tit-for-tat rebuttals might reduce some of the appearance of discord. By the way, if I'm sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, I'll apologize in advance. I don't mean to butt in uninvited. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone commenting that my point-by-point replies seemed adversarial. I believe that the chief complaint pertained to the amount of space that they consumed. On the other hand, several people praised the color-coding. Unfortunately, it's impossible to please everyone.
I've found that disagreements can be resolved with considerably greater efficiency when each point of contention is addressed separately. In my experience (both here and elsewhere), this actually reduces the perceived level of hostility by accentuating the constructive nature of each comment. Otherwise, they may collectively come across as a long-winded diatribe.
In any event, your advice is welcome, and I will try to post uninterrupted replies (such as this one) whenever feasible. —David Levy 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Last MessageEdit

Ok, thanks for the info, i'll remember this from now on. --Dominic 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my RFAEdit

Hello, just dropping by to see if I could discuss some comments you recently left on my RFA (note: I must make this absolutely clear; I am not trying to make you change your vote. I just want do discuss the issue.) Now, to the discussion; Several users have cited troubling evidence, and I would have opposed the nomination on this basis alone.

I was wondering if you could clarify this "troubling evidence" that has been cited far and wide. I know of one conflict that was brought to attention, which is really the only blemish in my Wikiservice. I myself agree that said conflict wasn't handled ideally, but as it is in the past, I can only perform perfectly on future conflicts. The rest of the reasons for opposition have either been tied to that or my superficial amount of edits.

Some of Master of Puppets' comments here are even more troubling. He compared page-blankers with pedophiles (despite realizing that "it isn't really a good analogy"), and that certainly isn't indicative of the level of tact that I expect from an admin.

I guess I could've skipped the analogy, but my main point is that I was trying to alert Swatjester of the users' past. As I said in my above response, this is one of the things I did incorrectly.

Several users criticised him for arguing with so many opponents, and he responded to these new opponents by arguing that this was untrue!

Well, if I may say, and no offence to yourself, but if you were to run in an RFA, and a conflict was brought up, would you present your case? I have not argued in the slightest on this RFA; I have brought up points I feel would help my side, and I have not yet even asked anyone to reconsider their vote. As another user mentioned, this is a democratic process; people vote based on their opinion of a candidate. In a real-world vote, do candidates just sit on a sideline while their "opposition" brings up faults? So to sum up this section, I was only trying to bring up some of the many positive impacts I have had on the community (interestingly enough, it is a bit funny to note that most of opposition has not even touched the stuff I put out yet; seemingly, everyone is ignoring it).

His answers to some the questions are unimpressive, and I'm stunned by his belief that 64% support for his RfA (as of the time of his comment) constitutes "a close call." This (along with other comments) leads me to believe that his grasp of Wikipedia policy is insufficient. —David Levy 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it to be a "close call", as there are still people voting; I've seen administrators go from 90% to 60% to 75%, and their RFAs have gone similarily to mine.
Anyway, this sums up my point; I would like to restate two points, though. Firstly, I'm not trying to sway you my way; vote an even stronger oppose now, if you'd like; this was only to discuss this topic with yourself, as I'd like to see what can be improved. Secondly, what I am doing can be called "arguing", but that is a point of view. I'm bringing up points I feel to be heard, and explaining faults that have been brought up, nothing more.

So now I leave you to think, and reply to me (by Wikipedia or email, either is fine), or not reply at all. Your choice, which I do respect. Thanks for discussing this with me. _-M o P-_ 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

bite BITE biteEdit

Have you had a chance to review the Hector-mo- situation? What do you think now? Frankly it just looks like an outright attempt at disruptiveness to me (possibly even a breaching experiment). There's no way an absolute newbie is going to immediately know how to create userboxes and then bring them to DRVU (under misspelled names) with a very trollish sounding undeletion reason.

We don't have to put up with all of this nonsense in Template: space. It should just be deleted on sight. I honestly don't understand why we have allowed the bar for templates and categories to be set soooo much lower than it is for articles. Articles, templates, and categories are the encyclopedic content. Period. That's what all the mirrors use. Everything else, project space, talk pages, user pages, that's all fluff, and I don't care so much about them. But it's kind of ridiculous that the standards for keeping something are so much lower for templates and categories than for project space. Every Wikipedia mirror out there is burdened with the extra useless weight of all of these thousands of unencyclopedic userboxes and user categories. It's not clean. It's not an acceptable division between actual content and the rest of the stuff that we just generate temporarily to keep us happy while we're working on the content. --Cyde Weys 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing. Edit

Indulge. :)

Dear David Levy/Archive2,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template wizard?Edit

I'm looking for a template wizard; would he be you? I'm trying to work up a fairly complex project involving conditionals and nested templates. Despite reading docs until my eyeballs are falling out, I still don't "get" the behaviors I see. Can we make a time to get on IRC and thrash this out? John Reid 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied, thank you. John Reid 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Main pageEdit

Heya, Wikipedia is running slowly for me, was about to rollback my change. How did I break the main page though? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


i need those questions man for out business intro class this is Mr. Hektor Gambini from OCC by the way!

THANK YOU for the links :) i'll check them laters :)

The Shield-HelpEdit

User:Kafziel reverted my edits that I considered useful. He called my edits "vandalism" when they clearly were not. Could you help me please and step in? CoolKatt number 99999 03:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is solved CoolKatt number 99999 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


User:CFIF keeps being uncivil to me. Please help me? CoolKatt number 99999 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. —David Levy 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Read his recent edits please. CoolKatt number 99999 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I did, and I didn't see any incivility. It's possible that I examined edits other than the ones to which you're referring, so please cite them. —David Levy 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just talk to him please, I tried, but he won't listen. CoolKatt number 99999 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I need you to cite the specific edits in which the user allegedly was uncivil. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I can't help you. —David Levy 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you joking me? Tell me how #1 Nominating your sub-pages for deletion, #2 Informing you of that, #3 Opening an RfC, #4 Informing you of that, and #5 responding to your uncivility is uncivil. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't see any incivility on the part of CFIF. (The mere act of disagreeing with you is not uncivil.) —David Levy 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Still he is bothering me and perhaps Wikistalking me. Could you help me there please? CoolKatt number 99999 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's accuse me some more of something I don't do. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus far, you've failed to corroborate these allegations of wrongdoing. If such evidence exists, please present it as part of the RfC that CFIF filed. —David Levy 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Another user investigated, and found some wrongdoing by CFIF. OK? CoolKatt number 99999 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And is that user an admin? Nope. I don't even believe he thouroughly investigated. Why don't you let David see for himself? --CFIF (talk to me) 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you lend me a handEdit

Hola, señor Administrator. Could you do me a favor? A new user did a copy-paste move of McKethan Stadium to Alfred A. McKethan Stadium. Could you please revert the changes and then move the page properly to Alfred A. McKethan Stadium? Thanks a bunch. I'll see you around. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) —David Levy 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Matt Yeager (Talk?) 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue check.pngEdit

Hi David,

I was going to vectorize "Blue check.png", but I discovered it is in fact a png-derivative of an already SVG image :) Could please tell me why is it so? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:StormsEdit

Hi there. You voted in the CfD debate here, and I've started a discussion about this at Category_talk:Storms. Any comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Help againEdit

User:Rollosmokes has been bothering both me and User:Blueboy96 over the latter's edits to WTNH. I appreciate Blueboy's edits, but Rollosmokes keeps reverting them everytime I revert to Blueboy's version. It is clear to me that Rollosmokes is violating both WP:OWN and WP:STALK, especially the latter since he has reverted edits by Blueboy in the past. In addition, Rollosmokes has left rather rude comments in both my talk page and Blueboy's talk page over the matter: [69], [70], in my talk page he told me I acted like a little child. And here is a link to an edit he reverted: [71] I need your help, he is going too far with this whole thing. CoolKatt number 99999 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently was involved in a similar dispute with Rollosmokes, so I don't feel comfortable intervening in an administrative capacity. Please seek the assistance of another sysop. If you do, you're welcome cite this edit (in which Rollosmokes referred to me as "a self-absorbed, ego-driven, bombastic blowhard") as another example of his incivility. —David Levy 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw it before, and I agree, the network name should be spelled "UPN" and only "UPN" (yes I'm straying off topic), but anyways, I'll seek help. CoolKatt number 99999 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rollosmokes speaksEdit

I will refer back to an earlier comment:

In my opinion, Blueboy's edits and additions have bordered on informative (which, when researched and written properly, are helpful) and sloppy (at times he has changed whole sentences, changing the entire continuity and context of paragraphs which someone else, such as myself, has had to clean up and revert). His contributions are as inconsistent as Alex Rodriguez's batting average with runners in scoring position. Blueboy needs to work on this and not be so sensitive. (5-23-06, from CoolKatt's talk page)

This is not an condemnation on all of Blueboy96's contributions. In WTNH-TV, he changed the wording of several sentences which resulted in paragraphs becoming choppy in context. I simply re-wrote or reverted what he changed. For example, he will change single-digit numbers written in word form back to numerical form (eg. "eight" to "8"), which stylistically incorrect.

Coolkatt's problem with me stems from my deleting of his sentences containing what can be viewed as "trivial", such as his favorite "largest (network) station on the UHF dial" reference. I told him that notes such as this should be placed in a separate section within the article, not within the main section.

This is professional, CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. Nothing more and nothing less. Coolkatt has made it personal, so I answered back.

Off-topic, Mr. Levy: I apologize for my "incivility" towards you, but at the time that is how I viewed you in regards to our dispute. Rollosmokes 07:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rollosmokes is back at it againEdit

See Special:Contributions/Rollosmokes, some of the edits he reverted are mine, I need you to do something about this. Now User:Boothy443 is in on this too, check his edits to see what I mean. CoolKatt number 99999 06:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All three of these people need to be watched for 3RR violations. There is an ongoing edit war on various pages and templates regarding the placement of out-of-market stations. CoolKatt, in particular, is close to breaking 3RR on WPHL-TV. Morgan Wick 06:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, againEdit

All I'm doing is re-reverting his dumb edits. And now he wants to drag Boothy443 into our dispute, when all I did was revert one of Coolkatt's recent edits back to one done by Boothy. For further explanation on my reasons for this, read my talk page. Rollosmokes 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistance neededEdit

Someone is trying to vandalise SMARTCODE CORP. by requesting for deletion 2 times already. There are many links done by other users to our page. I work for the company and the page is an overview of the company. We believe competitors are trying to delete the page. Thank you - SC Web 20:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999Edit

CoolKatt is now making legal threats against me for reverting his edits. Assistance is needed. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you stop reverting my edits, I will remove it. CoolKatt number 99999 18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Except you aren't allowed to make legal threats at Wikipedia: (Wikipedia:No legal threats) --CFIF (talk to me) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I will remove it. CoolKatt number 99999 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not gonna do it because it will be in the page history forever, so you could face a serious block. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[72] how about this? CoolKatt number 99999 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt continues to add information about the Springfield, MA market and {{Springfield TV}} (which he also changed last week) to the WCTX page, despite the consensus not having been reached on including out-of-market templates in station articles/out-of market stations in market templates (unless I've missed something recently). He also continues to use harsh language and describes revisions as "vandalism". I have reverted back, but I'm certain he will do it again. Something must be done. Rollosmokes 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done about me. It is YOU, Rollosmokes, that needs something done about. I asked you several times to stop reverting my edits. This is the last straw.
Rollosmokes keeps reverting my edits, despite being told to stop. I need your help, I can't take anymore from him. CoolKatt number 99999 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And believe it or not, Rollosmokes is forcing me to use so-called "harsh" language and is also forcing me to call his edits vandalism. The latter is of course, because his edits are vandalism, despite denials like this. I really need your help, he keeps vandalizing every article I edit by reverting my edits. More examples of his vandalism are here, here, here, here, here, here, here (this one changing to UPN's full name that is not used anymore), here, here, and finally here. In most of these edits, he is removing factual info, info that BELONGS in those articles. And some of those reversions were of my edits. CoolKatt number 99999 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is this CoolKatt number 99999? He is seen on pratically every TV station's article editing history and is seen often editing many other articles too.--grejlen - talk 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
He's a user that has been banned for 3 months because he violated an injunction on a pending ArbCom case against him. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

--CFIF (talk to me) 01:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Gameshow MarathonEdit

Please explain why you chose to move Game$how Marathon to Gameshow Marathon. The dollar sign is part of the title. --Zpb52 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's part of the stylized logo. Every official textual reference to the program (in the closing credits, at the CBS website, in all promotional materials, etc.) uses the spelling "Gameshow Marathon." A Google search for "gameshow marathon" yields more than 77,000 results, compared to zero results for "game$how marathon." What led you to believe that the latter was the official spelling? —David Levy 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollosmokes will not stopEdit

I really need your help, I am just about at rope's end. He continues to leave rude messages on my talk page, he is getting progressively rude in his edit summaries, and has made a threat to me in the talk page of WikiProject Television Stations. He is going too far, the only way to stop this is to block him. Please, I need your help. CoolKatt number 99999 07:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He calls that a threat? CoolKatt needs to get a clue as to what a real threat is. I really hate to make this go back-and-forth, but something needs to be done about his behavior. Here is some recent evidence:

He is playing the victim as usual. What got him out of a block for making legal threats? Gotta be running smear campaigns against users and playing the victim when it's really him making poor contributions that others don't like. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My behavior is fine. It is your behavior that needs fine-tuning Rollosmokes. And CFIF, stay out of this one. Rollosmokes is constantly violating WP:OWN, WP:STALK, and WP:POINT. If this keeps up, it will escalate to a point where I am going to have to ask an admin to make a rule saying only I and admins can revert my edits, other regular users (like Rollosmokes) can't without getting a warning. CoolKatt number 99999 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that Rollosmokes' constant reversions of my edits are also vandalism as I described above. CoolKatt number 99999 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
More examples of his vandalism include the constant changing to UPN's full name in both WWOR-TV and WPWR-TV, this, this, this one changing back to UPN's full name, and finally here. CoolKatt number 99999 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Now he is labeling my edits as "vandalism": [78]. He is going too far, something needs to be done. If he continues to label my edits as "vandalism," I am going to have to go to RfC. CoolKatt number 99999 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What the real problem is is YOU. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't involve you CFIF. CoolKatt number 99999 15:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't involve me either. Please take your argument elsewhere. —David Levy 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Anyone who has a custom skin with moderately dark background, or anything darker, is going to see a mess. I have a black background, and all I see are a few white specks where some bones show up. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 00:17

Excuse meEdit

How is posting the score for a major North American sporting event making a point? With all due respect its as notable of inclusion on the front page and I'd appreciate it if you would revert back -- Tawker 01:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 'fair nuff though from the timestamps I was looking like it looked like the WC scores were live -- Tawker 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

hiding Last Updated on the Main PageEdit

I posted the code. Cheers! — ceejayoz talk 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for adding it in. :-) — ceejayoz talk 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sport on ITNEdit

Hi David- I noticed that you returned the ice hockey and basketball items to ITN- I support this, although I have to point out that if you choose to include national-level champions in North America then the same should apply elsewhere in the world for national-level championships where the result is of general interest and where the situation is otherwise in conformity with the ITN guidelines. I hope you will enforce this. Badgerpatrol 13:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke ColeEdit

This arbitration case is closed, and the result has been published at the link above.

Delivered in my capacity as clerk to the Arbitration Committee. I take no part in making these decisions. --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Firefox browser / Google ToolbarEdit

Thanks for the advice. I've turned off the Google toolbar. I try to watch that articles don't get cut off, but sometimes I miss one. Thanks again. Ardenn 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you uninstall it? I can't seen to find it in the programs list under the control panel on Win2K. Thanks. Ardenn 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That worked, thank you mate! I really didn't need it anyway, I have a link to Google in my toolbar. Ardenn 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Ardenn 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to give you another thank you. Because I uninstalled the tool bar, I went to the Firefox/Thunderbirt website, and found a great skin for both, and some great additions! Thanks! --Ardenn 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Blue check.pngEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue check.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


My intentions are to keep the article within a certain level of quality. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with me wanting to claim ownership of this article.

From the time I revised this entry on January 29th [79], the structure of the text has been the same, with minimal changes. CoolKatt number 99999 has decided that it needs further restucturing, creating more subsections based on the different ownerships [80]. He attempted to do the same thing with KYW-TV [81] and WCAU [82], but it didn't work. In WWOR-TV, this is not necessary either. The previous versions were fine as they were before CK changed it.

Obviously, you didn't read Talk:WWOR-TV or you would have seen my comments on why I reverted back to a version of BETTER QUALITY. So, before you accuse me of violating WP:OWN, check first. Rollosmokes 05:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I did read your comments. I don't doubt that you believe your version to be superior. CoolKatt, however, obviously disagrees. This is an honest dispute, and the solution is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints and unilaterally revert. (Doing so without a summary and marking your edit as "minor" were especially inappropriate.) I suggest that you pursue some sort of mutually acceptable compromise, or at least make an effort to discuss this matter with CoolKatt in a constructive manner. Whether you realize it or not, you are basically attempting to claim ownership of the article."
If you haven't been following our ongoing dispute, talking to CK is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. If that RfC against him won't do anything to keep him from bulllying myself or others, I'm going to try mediation. If that doesn't work, he'd better get ready for RfC No. 2. Rollosmokes 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia IntegrationEdit

Thanks for the help with the merging list. Have you checked out WP:INT yet? Cwolfsheep 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Hey there, David. Thought I'd give you and a few other regulars a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


What test are you talking about? And I know how to contribute to Wikipedia. 07:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Umm. Yes. According to you it wasn't a constuctive change. According to me it was because it introduced humor. Can you have the civility to respond after you accuse me of something? 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is one of the hugest pages I've seen. 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent image deletionsEdit

Would it be possible for you to undelete the other files, if for nothing else than to see how they are/were being used? Ardric47 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "deprecating improper image format"Edit

FYI, you broke the templates. —David Levy 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Or one of them, anyway. (That's why I rolled back your edits.) —David Levy 09:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, on one of them I forgot to constrain the image size. On the point of the image formats, why do you insist on using GIFs? There may be some problems with the current implementation of SVG (perhaps rendering SVG as 16-bit PNG rather than 24-bit would be a better option) but we have both Image:X mark.svg and Image:Red x.png to choose from - what's the problem with the PNG version? --bainer (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:IAR (endorsed by Jimbo). It makes absolutely no sense to switch to a file that's 3.86 times larger and broken for 85% of users. The SVG -> 24-bit PNG issue was reported long ago, but there's no indication of an impending fix. Regardless, this particular SVG contains alpha-transparency, so it would render as a 24-bit PNG anyway. Additionally, it doesn't match the checkmark icons used in related templates. (The dimensions and styling are different.)
The PNG file is larger and has a solid background. We could update it to match the GIF, but it still would be slightly larger (without providing any advantages). —David Levy 09:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And in case you haven't read my reply from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, CSD I1 applies to "a redundant copy, in the same image file format" (emphasis mine). —David Levy 09:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to update that PNG myself but I see you've beaten me to it. Surely it's now much preferable to the GIF (the only difference now is about thirty bytes, which cannot possibly make a difference to anyone who has enough bandwidth to view a wiki page). I'm familiar with IAR of course, but it makes good sense to use image formats consistently (to allow for easy manipulation by the software, for example) and moreover PNG is a free format, whereas GIF is not. There is a reason why every Wikimedia project is moving towards standardising media formats. Seeing as the PNG version is updated, I'll switch to that now. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no advantage to using the PNG. There are only disadvantages. For example, it's incompatible with some older browsers. (I'm not saying that we should compromise the site's integrity for the benefit a small minority of users, but we shouldn't go out of our way to mess things up for them.) GIFs are every bit as easy to manipulate as PNGs, and the Unisys LZW patents have expired. As of next month, GIF will be a 100% free format.
PNGs usually offer superior performance, but this is an exception. As you're familiar with WP:IAR, you should realize that this swap makes no sense. —David Levy 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think if you're really that worked up about PNGs (and I see you've had several discussions about replacing PNGs with GIFs) you should take this to a wider audience - as far as I am aware all of the Wikimedia projects have decided that PNG is a better format than GIF, if for no other reason than standardisation (which is surely a good thing), and I really don't feel like questioning that on an image-by-image basis. --bainer (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In general, I'm quite fond of PNGs. They usually are better than GIFs, but there are exceptions to every rule. Please explain how we benefit by blindly adopting a single format. What's the harm in using PNGs in some instances and GIFs in others? —David Levy 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that using file formats consistently across the whole project is a good idea (to make manipulation by the software easier, for example). If you want to change the policy of using SVG and PNG over GIF then this is really not the place to do it, but since you want to debate the point, could I ask now what are the problems with the particular PNG image in question? It is 37 bytes larger to the GIF version, which is utterly inconsequential. Are there any display problems with this particular image? It works for me in all my browsers. If the only consequence is that someone running IE4 sees a white background instead of a transparent background then I really think that there's no advantage in breaking consistency. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I just thought of a better way to put this: what is the advantage of GIF? If the size thing only affects a handful of very small images, which of course are very small, meaning a small increase in size is not a problem, then how is it useful to break consistency? --bainer (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt (block evasion)Edit

Apparently he's found some way to evade his block. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

to CFIF: Leave me alone. CoolKatt number 99999 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lift my block now! I promise to be civil! CoolKatt number 99999 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop telling me what to do. You are trying to play the victim again and making me look bad in the process. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

to CFIF: Me? Make you look bad? No, through reverting WWOR, YOU have made ME look bad. CoolKatt number 99999 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You have actually made yourself look bad with a lot of your edits. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To CFIF: When my block is over, I am filing an RfC against you. CoolKatt number 99999 20:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll likely be as succesful as your cases against Rollosmokes and A Man in Black. Hitting me while I'm on vacation, you're a real quality person. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CoolKatt number 99999Edit

Might be worth considering an early unblock if you think the user is unlikely to repeat offend. Bear in mind, of course, a block is not a punishment but a means of protecting the wiki. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 20:32 11 July 2006 (GMT).

Congrats! Something had to be done to CK in order to get his attention.

However, I will disagree with Rich Farmbrough in regards to lifting his block early. CoolKatt's past behavior leaves me weary of how he'll act when the block is lifted. He uses bully tactics to justify his wrongdoing, always believing that he is in the right. As such his apologies, IMO, are quarter-hearted at best. They ring just plain hollow to me, because he'll act up in the same manner again if given time.

I request a longer ban. If I had my way, it'd be a permanent one. To me, the fact that he attempted to circumvent the current block warrants a indefinite ban. But I will hold off on my planned mediation request for the next two days. I'll see how CK acts when he returns. Rollosmokes 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back to reverting at WWOR-TV, along with filing a joke of an RfC against me. It's comedy at its finest. CFIF (talk to me) 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My interest in the case is rather limited, but I will say that the user has been confronted several times about adding speculative information (as opposed to factual information) on Wikipedia -- by his own admission[83], he has no problem adding things he speculates are correct, without verification first. I have no personal interest in CK being blocked / not blocked / etc., but simply want to avoid speculation on Wiki. (I'm not sure if this is the right place to make such a comment, but I'm very confused by how the RfC process is going. Amnewsboy 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigation and ArbitrationEdit

On top of a ongoing investigation pending against CK, I have now filed a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration as one more attempt to settle this. I did this after learning that he filed an investigation request against me, and for me this was the proverbial last straw. Please feel free to comment on it. Rollosmokes 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Page edit linksEdit

David, your proposal for the main page is excellent. However, the lone square brackets around the edit links are wrong. Look at the portal template, or any other portal out there, and the main page is a portal after all. Bracketless is the correct form. With brackets contradicts the standard method and is visually "clunky". 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I wasn't thinking about the portal headers; I was emulating the links that appear at the tops of most page sections (such as this one). I've reverted to your version. —David Levy 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully this proposal can be moved forward because it's a great idea. 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I was never not a vandal! Nookdog 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revert to cleanupEdit

Why did you revert it, the new version was working fine? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh i see, my apoligies. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Just to let you know the image in this template has now gone AWOL. Another user seems to have killed the image itself! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WATL, Rollosmokes, and CFIFEdit

Please block Rollosmokes and CFIF. They are getting on my nerves by reverting my edits. This is CFIF reverting my edit to WATL: [84], and Rollosmokes: [85]. Please block them. I can't stand them anymore. CoolKatt number 99999 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Puhleeze CoolKatt, you are being ridiculous, bordering on insane. I didn't do a single thing excpet revert unneeded and redundant info. You have an ArbCom case against you and anything you say or do can and will be used against you. --CFIF (talk to me) 01:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That is what I am talking about. There is a policy against WikiStalking, and I'd suggest you follow it. CoolKatt number 99999 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'm reverting every single edit you make on the spot. Can you come up with more lies, or are you out of them? --CFIF (talk to me) 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt being plain uncivil againEdit

He started another frivolus RfC, and warned me and Rollosmokes not to edit it under "response". He needs another block. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See my response on User talk:Pathoschild. CoolKatt number 99999 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt, I really don't get how you can say I'm the one being ridiculous. That whole freakin' RfC is ridiculous. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


What... 150 was just too big? [86] ;-) Is there an actual reason for the 149 that I might not know about (Width of the Main Page or something) or was it just a whim? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Page talk comment (since removed)Edit

Hi David. I read the comment you made on the Main Page talk page. The whole section has since been removed, but from looking at that editor's talk page, I think it is probably the GraalOnline case (which I know nothing about). In particular, see Talk:GraalOnline. HTH. Carcharoth 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has put the picture of a penis on the main page. Please revert if you can. HELP! --Royalbroil 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been reverted. Thanks anyhow. --Royalbroil 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sizes of the main page imageEdit

I noticed that you recently changed the sizes of the images on the main page. However, as per WP:SA#Criteria for listing images in day entries and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, these images should be no more than 100px in width. This is because of how the main page currently appears on 800x600 display resolution, which many users have set on their computer monitors — anything greater than that value screws of the formatting of the main page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify as it was told to me because I cannot find the exact discussion: the issue has to do with how the text is presentable on the main page. For instance, on an 800x600 monitor with the larger image size of the flag, the word wrapping causes the text to appear like this:


fragile peace
is being kept by the UN's largest
peacekeeping force, undergoes its first
multi-party elections in more than four

which is harder to read when compared to the smaller image size and more horizontal space for the text:

DRC (Congo) (flag
, whose
fragile peace is being
kept by the UN's
largest peacekeeping force, undergoes
its first multi-party elections in more
than four decades.

Although, I do agree that some of the images with different aspect ratios should be resized a little bit, but not to the degree that it affects the readability of the text. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You should bring up the issue on Talk:Main Page. As far as I can tell, the arbitary 100px width limit is at least two years old, before the current style of the main page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

David and the MainpageEdit

Hey David, For whatever reason I had a good and close look at the Mainpage today and then for the same reason read through the Talk. I (we) just wanted to take a moment to thank you your vigilance and perseverance in that very contentious arena. Sooner or later someone will come along to replace you in all of this but, until then, you are our hero! You are truly amazing at fending off the sometimes well intentioned but also sometimes ill intentioned thrusts towards our "Mainpage" design. There will always be another design to compare us to and therein find fault with us but, thats the nature of life; a never-ending performance enhancing ritual. Anyway, bs aside, thanks for being there in ways that I could never imagine myself doing.

Best always, hydnjo

What he said. :) If I liked barnstars, I'd give you a large, rotating, blinking monstrosity. --Quiddity 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I apologize for reverting your changes to the template inadvertantly and for the terseness of my edit summary. The image resolution looked fine to me, and I find the image more interesting than a portrait (of which we've had many on DYK). Might I suggest that, in the future, if you disagree with the choice of a DYK image after 6 hours, that you update the entire template if you have time. -- Samir धर्म 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New users and Ignore All RulesEdit

Ignore all rules basically has 3 different groups of people who use it.

First up, it's a rule for new users. If you're confused and worried, just edit, wikipedia is a wiki. This means that you can make mistakes, and someone will come along and fix it f3r you. Go ahead and edit! You won't be punished. Come on, try it, first one is free, you know you want to, you'll like it, honest! It's very important that we are welcoming to new users and that they can learn to edit by trial and error, and we'll give them all the time and patience to do so. Because wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've actually seen people make this rule up from scratch for themselves and others, and it matched verbatim with that which was written down before. That's why I'd like to report that this is the rule that is apparently natural and in effect from the bottom up, rather than try to proscribe the law from the top down.

Second, it's a rule for experienced users, trying to create an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, not a site for playing nomic. Sometimes the rules as listed break down. Hey, we have about a million registered users now, and over a million pages. If our current guidelines can cover all the possible interactions and exceptions needed in each situation, I'd be surprised. Sometimes the guidelines we have simply do not apply at all to a situation at hand, and can be contraproductive. If you have to choose between being contraproductive or writing an encyclopedia, of course you want to write an encyclopedia. :-)

Third, for very experienced users, (mediators, arbitration commitee, office, or one of the "cabal"s. ) you will be called in at those times where the rules have simply broken down. You get called in, and the procedures are deadlocked, nothing is working, people are fighting and there's just all around mayhem. In the case where the rules just aren't working, you need to step outside those rules (as minimally as possible, but still) to be able to fix them and eventually apply them again.

There's more to be said about this, but that about covers this territory. Yes, experienced users need to know the rules before they break them. Very experienced users must be able to read consensus straight out and between the lines as well. But new users and casual contributors get to be BOLD and ignore all rules, because it's the natural way to learn a wiki (that's how I did! :-) ), and we can quickly correct their work and show or explain The Right Way to do it.

Kim Bruning 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the least bit surprised that Kim has seen something like this rule made up from scratch. I am surprised that it matched any particular version's wording verbatim! But actually, what I came here for was to ask for a ticky mark of a different colour for IAR, because I saw David's name on the blue one. It's currently got an "essay" icon, and this is a bit more than just an essay, no? I vote for orange if it's all the same to you, but I don't care much. 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! -Dan 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable notable-editor welcome procedure?Edit

Howdy. I'm wondering what to do concerning newuser User:Jrosenbaum editing the Jonathan Rosenbaum article? They were good npov/cleanup edits, and he's a professional writer, so (assumming it is he) it'd be really nice to have him welcomed but not overwhelmed, but I'm not familiar with all the username policies/procedures for possible notable editors. All I could find linkwise was Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you, and Template:Notable Wikipedian (which seems highly privacy-invasive to me (unless they place it themselves)), and I didnt want to just dump those links and a normal welcome template on his page.

Plus I just finished reading his book on Dead Man, and would inevitably go all fanboyish on him, or over-proslytize that he join the wikiproject:film, or something! ;-)

Thanks for any help :) --Quiddity·(talk) 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Or suggestions on where/to whom I should mention it? (admin noticeboard? someone intelligent from the welcome committee? PR dept? you're the third person i've asked who didnt answer ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Much much thanks. Just fyi, I've taken it to VPA. :) --Quiddity·(talk) 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate. Why don't you change it to WIKIPEDIA IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON 1,346, 000 ARTICLES IN ENGLISH. I am sick of going into the stats section because the count in the article section is always out of date. I fully agree that the focus of wikipedia should be to imrove quality of articles but this could me mentioned on main page to refelct wiki's goals whilst keeping data that I think is needed. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with User:Displaced BritEdit

Displaced Brit (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks and has continued to stalk me.

I am in fear of retaliation for this call for help, so I am editing this anonymously in hopes he won't find out and jump on me for this. --CFIF (as an anon IP) 19 August 2006

Template questionEdit

You seem to know a lot about templates. I'm considering creating one, about a legal issue. But there's not a master article, nor a category, nor am I interested in creating those. Can templates about a subject exist in absence of a parallel article or category? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the template would be to link several articles about court cases dealing with an issue, along with the couple of laws at the centre. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki(d ad)versityEdit

Lol who'd a thunk rounded corners would cause such a stink? You're quite right, rounded corners are not W3C, are browser specific and should never be used. "They look fine in my browser" is the height of selfishness. I'd say 20% of my development time is devoted to cross browser compatability (which equates to making sure IE doesn't fsck things up). The result is hate non-standard browsers. grrr. --Monotonehell 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Just FYI, I've added our names to Version 20, as we seem to agree on most things in it. (You're obviously welcome to tweak it whenever, too). I'm trying to whittle the variants down a bit. That's all :) --Quiddity 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm changing the toolbox section internal ordering. I'm not sure where you stand on that; it's the bottom thread at the talk page, if you disagree. --Quiddity 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your grammar policing is not accurateEdit

Your revert fails to address the several grammatical circumstances in the current ITN which do not meet this penny-ante style dispute. Further, can you please cite a policy which states this? Finally, the sentence is improper, and in passive voice. An active voice (present or past tense) is preferable to a passive voice in any news coverage. - Amgine 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your action was not based in policy but rather personal point of view. - Amgine 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: for comparisons of voice in news coverage:
I believe I have previously asked you to point me toward the "house style", as you term it. I do not question your edit, per se, but rather the basis on which it was made especially as, to me as a relative outsider, it appears capricious and arbitrary in that it addressed one element of grammar in one entry but not others either in the same entry (passive verb) or others in the template.
Please note that I have not edited that template. I am not an admin on en.wp and am unable to edit so carefully protected a template as the ITN. I would not wish you to labour under a misconception. - Amgine 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To be accurate, the news item referred to two separate events. To make the news item refer to both simultaneously it would need to refer to "acceptance" and declining to accept. "Are awarded" would happen after the declining. I would happily go through the history of ITN and point out the many exceptions to your "rules" - ITN has consistently shown a lack of journalistic background probably because it is done by encyclopedists - but this is hardly worth it. It was also old news yesterday.
I would like to apologize for my hasty first posting regarding this revert. I was inapprpriately rude. - Amgine 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote on sidebarEdit

I started a vote on the sidebar to come to a conclusion. Electionworld Talk? 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User Rubber cat's pageEdit

Please stop removing the admin userbox as it's obviously a joke considering the one right below it.

Also, would it kill you to make some subpages or archives so this page doesn't lag so ridiculously when being edited? Jtrainor 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I was just restoring a version which I think is far better. In the process I thought I'd point out that nothing in Jimbo's recent intervention precludes my preferred version; in fact the "always has been" part of his edit summary indicates that he thought the old version was perfectly fine. Wikilawyering is a pejorative term which people (like me:) tend to take offence at. Haukur 12:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You based your rationale upon a technicality. Jimbo could have reverted the wording, but he didn't. Of course, you're welcome to ask him which version he prefers. —David Levy 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you still haven't understood my point, which is my fault for not explaining clearly enough. I don't particularly care so much what version Jimbo prefers. He clearly didn't intend to decree a final wording for the page with his edit. All he was saying was that IAR itself had always been policy as far as he was concerned. That still gives us a lot of latitude for the wording, including the old wording which I prefer. Haukur 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The community prefers the new wording. —David Levy 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think so? Haukur 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rulesDavid Levy 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page article countEdit

. *sigh* the "discussion" has degenerated into an emotional argument again. I fear that the topic of the article count will never see a reasoned discussion. People seem to fear debate. They seem to prefer plebicites, democracies are no way to run a project. I think that perhaps the main page needs to be "run" by a committee with a binding outcome. That way the committee can hear people's opinions, debate amongst itself and come to a conclusion free of all the screaming matches. Politics... bleh --Monotonehell 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of me wishes that Jimbo would step in and unilaterally settle this once and for all. —David Levy 04:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Too many people of late are forming ranks and not being open minded about things. I (try to) approach any idea with an open mind, weigh up the concequences and talk about it before firmly coming to a conclusion. Too many of these arguments are turning into "Team politics". This is no way to run an encyclopedia. --Monotonehell 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, sir. I have helped numerous people on numerous javascript issues. So far, only one has ever even tested my project, in now over two months. How long have you been working on your code? Gimmetrow 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind helping; it's the other side of the coin to criticism. I guess there was a bit of miscommunication, and I'm somewhat frustrated at getting no response over an extended period. If you want to test my code you could add the snippet on User:Gimmetrow/sand and let me know if the page looks weird or your browser slows down using the add-on, with platform/browser. Cheers. Gimmetrow 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin imageEdit

Hi, I believe you deleted the Steve Irwin image this morning because it was no longer being used. It looked to me that it had been vandalized (replaced with an offensive image) and I edited the Steve Irwin article removing the image link. I then went to the image hoping to determine the vandal from the loges - but the image had already been deleted. Do you still have access to the logs for this image? If so, can you determine the vandal and either warn or block (as appropriate)? ...Thanks, Brian 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Some support from an opposerEdit

Hi David. I waded briefly into the discussion about the main page article count a couple of weeks back, and opposed your decision to remove it from the top of the page. I have not been involved more recently, but have followed the discussions as they have unfolded, and still am of the opinion that you are wrong. However, or perhaps furthermore, I am disgusted by the personal attacks, the lack of good faith, the incivility, the plain, old-fashioned rudeness that has been displayed by those who seem to share my opinion on the matter. You have been subjected to vitriolic hatred, and I am sorry for that. I am ashamed that there are those who cannot argue cogently and politely who are "on my side".

I am glad to note that you yourself have behaved impeccably. I feel it is important that someone who disagrees with you can come forward and say that the behaviour of others who disagree with you is wrong, and should not be tolerated. I hope you understand that - leaving the dispute itself aside - you most certainly have my whole-hearted support in the way you have conducted yourself. Batmanand | Talk 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have formally warned Juicifer. If he continues, I will throw the book at him. I am genuinely angry at what has happened to you in this dispute.
Anyway, forget about it and him and carry on gauging consensus; after all, what we all most of us want is to find the right solution. Batmanand | Talk 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested to read the whole correspondence on my talk page. Batmanand | Talk 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Change to Template:GuidelineEdit


I've proposed a change to Template:Guideline at its talk page. I simply want to insert the word "official" before guideline. Some other templates confused me into thinking the articles they were in weren't guidelines. So I thought that placing the word "official" in those templates would make that very clear. However, now this general template is not in the same form. Can you please insert "official" in there for me? Or if you disagree, I'd appreciate comment on the talk page. Thanks. Fresheneesz 07:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I forgot about that... I'd be happy to find a compromise between our wordings. My problem with your wording is that it seems to imply that voting on a proposal is good if done in some way or other, and bad if done another way. In my experience, voting on a proposal is not good period. Yours, >Radiant< 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • While that may be true by technical definition, when most people think of voting they mean an explicit bulleted list of people saying 'support' or 'oppose'. That is bad for all the reasons at WP:VIE. >Radiant< 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem appears to be that you're using an overly broad definition of the word "vote", that is not backed up by dictionaries. Indeed, the key word is "formal". Votes are formal, discussion is not. >Radiant< 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, they are not. I wonder where you got that idea from? For reference, I can cite you CAT:PRO which is about as informal as it gets. >Radiant< 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Long pageEdit

As a side point, your talk page is getting very long. Maybe you should archive it? >Radiant< 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Verb tensesEdit

Your rewrite is impeccable. Ah, so I see, the convension to write in the present tense for those entries? I update that template very rarely. I'm glad there are others that are keeping on top of things. Thanks again. --HappyCamper 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Could you please point me to any recent policy or guideline that was decided upon by a vote? At any rate, my main point is that that page is mainly for novice users (because advanced users don't usually read such) - based on my experience, novices tend to assume that voting is common, possibly because AFD and such look like a vote, and possibly because voting is common in other communities. So they are biased towards voting - and if any instructional page says that we sometimes vote, they tend to assume that we always vote. And that is precisely the wrong mindset for any kind of consensus-forming process on the wiki. Yes, I know that any rule we have has its exceptions, so if we make a rule 'no voting' that doesn't mean we can never vote. But a rule that says 'some voting' merely encourages people. >Radiant< 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "I'm noting the fact that voting often plays a substantial role in the discussions." - please point out where, because I'm not seeing it. I'm not claiming that two misconceptions make one right, I'm saying that a misconception is countered by encouraging people not to - not by saying it's sort of appropriate (which only strengthens the misconception). >Radiant< 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that's not at all what I said. I said that after a guideline to standardize something is already accepted by consensual discussion, it may be useful to vote on what the standard would be (e.g. color, size, pictures on the left/right, etc). Once more, please point out where voting plays a substantial role in discussions. >Radiant< 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • So it seems then that we are agreed that straw polls are only useful in standardization proposals, to find out which standard is the most popular. That is precisely what my earlier example was. >Radiant< 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

TOC RightEdit

uh, can i vote for option 4, that concise thingy over there? i think it's worse as TOC right was it was originally :/ JoeSmack Talk 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


We actually eat this in Canada

Well done to resolve a difficult situation with a stubborn editor. Here's some poutine. -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


You appear to be misinformed as to what the admin rollback button is for. It does a revert without explanation, nothing more, nothing less. That means it can be used (1) for reverts that for whatever reason don't require an explanation, or (2) if an explanation is given somewhere else. In this case, I explained on the relevant talk page. >Radiant< 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Radiant, I'm not "misinformed." Excepting tests and catastrophic errors, it's downright rude to revert a good-faith edit without providing a summary (even if it's only "see the talk page"). Performing an administrative rollback implies that no explanation is necessary, even if you post one somewhere else. This is especially bad when you're actively participating in a dispute. It sends the message that sysops possess a higher level of authority than other users (and don't need to bother justifying their actions). Of course, it's rude for anyone (sysop or not) to omit an edit summary in such a situation (and there are various scripts that provide similar functionality).
Rolling back a good-faith edit with which you disagree (as though it's vandalism or a newbie test) is inappropriate. The button was not given to you to make your edit-warring easier and more convenient. —David Levy 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if your point is that the admin rollback may only be used for vandalism or newbie tests, then I respectfully disagree with you. If your point was that it wasn't particularly nice of me then I think you have a point, and I apologize for the incivility. >Radiant< 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


  Just thought you might like to know that the image is designed for use on a white background. Could it be possible for you to make it work with any colour (with variable transparency and the like) thanks! --WikiSlasher 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User browser:FirefoxEdit

You recently reverted my edit to the User firefox template changing the image to a public domain version of the Firefox logo. You state that "It's clearly a derivative work". The image is up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox logo.png. So far, the vote is 3-1 in favor of Keep. If the image is kept at commons, it can be used here. If you disagree with it's usage, I'd suggest you vote at commons. A couple of points mentioned there:

  • It is possible that Firefox released the image into the PD to the Open Clipart library to be distributed with Firefox for software packages that only distribute entirely free material.
  • If somebody contacts the Open Clipart library, and gets them to remove the image, then I will change my vote to delete.
  • Although it resembles the Firefox logo, it lacks a lot of the detail the real image has, making it able to be available in the PD.

If the image is kept after the request has closed, I will change the template back. Thanks, Shardsofmetal [ TalkContribs ] 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your reply on my user page. It seemed to me that you weren't very pleasant about this matter. I hope that I didn't seem mean earlier. I'm still wondering, however, how it can be that an image can remain on Wikimedia servers, but can't be used on any pages. Also, can I use this image on my user page, provided it stays? If you respond to my user page, please be nicer than last time. You violated the second rule on my talk page, and Wikipedia:Civility. Shardsofmetal [ TalkContribs ] 00:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to be uncivil. I'm simply conveying the reality of the situation. I'm sorry that I'm unable to make that more pleasant than it is.
The image is not legal, and it should not remain on Wikimedia servers. I'm not telling you this to be rude; I'm telling you because this is a very important legal issue for the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, I'm sorry that I can't sugar-coat this for you. —David Levy 00:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm also sorry if I was uncivil at all. It's not your fault, I just got stressed trying to defend an image I uploaded with good intentions. Since the image appears to be a copyvio, and I can't use it on the template anyway, I've done the responsible thing and changed my vote to Delete. I have also decided to take a break from uploading PD images for a while. I uploaded this image with the intent of improving Wikimedia, which it clearly did not do. I hope my next PD image contribution will be a better one. Thanks for your understanding, Shardsofmetal [ TalkContribs ] 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your comments. I started off very slowly, posted in all the obvious forums I knew for feedback, and received nothing other than strong support. I queried everyone that I knew had an interest and stopped the process frequently. That said, I've stopped my bot, and am waiting more comments.

I'll change the templates, but only after significant discussion and consensus occurs. I'm not going to do another huge bot run and have more people getting all pissed off at me. alphaChimp(talk) 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer you respond on my talk page. As I said before, I really did everything in my power to attempt to generate discussion before making the edits. My new templates were patterned directly off of {{Cleanup-date}}, which we use in the cleanup category. It seemed only reasonable to extend the same logic to the merge templates. You've got to realize that I'm only trying to help out here. It's a bit frustrating to receive such a negative response when I'm doing something that's obviously in good faith.
It should be noted that in over 8500 edits with the bot, yours was the only negative comment I received. Everyone else was either ambivalent or appreciative. I was somewhat surprised to receive that response. alphaChimp(talk) 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

David, please document the improvements you made to {{merge}}, {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}, at Template talk:Merge#Usage. It looks like a great improvement. (I will watch Template talk:Merge and my talk page in case you need to respond to me.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration relating to WP:STRAW and RadiantEdit

Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with STRAW, I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input - if you're not too busy. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

VFD -> AFDEdit

Please read the archives, because your assessment of the situation is in error. The rename was not spurred by the creation of MFD; indeed MFD was created (mainly by yours truly, in case you're wondering how I know) after the rename (via PFD even) to clear out the perennial misunderstanding where userpages and Wikipedia pages should be deleted. >Radiant< 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That is incorrect. MFD closed a misconception. VFD dealt with userpages and wikipages just fine, only some people didn't realize that - just like VFD dealt with everything else before it got its own process. That had nothing to do with the rename. The rename reached consensus because, even though it was a lot of work, people offered to do so. The intent was, and had always been, to clear up the oxymoron that "VFD is not a vote". MFD was an afterthought. >Radiant< 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again, that is incorrect. I'll quote the original proposal for MFD, from the archive I pointed out earlier.
So it boils down to this. We need a mechanism for deletion of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. This mechanism is presently VFD. It occasionally gets abused (e.g. the "Wikipedians for Decency" disaster) but it is generally used well (e.g. the "Non-admin noticeboard", "Forbid infobox standardizing", outdated and dysfunctional index pages, never-used wikiprojects, etc, all got sensible discussion and most ended up deleted). The same applies to userspace - userpage nominations are exceedingly rare but sometimes needed.
So we can either 1) name this page "Pages for deletion" and accept the fact that pages in the Wikipedia, Help, Portal and User namespaces (and whatever new namespaces appear) can be nominated here, or 2) name this page "Articles for deletion" and fork off a new process page for the other namespaces (preferably not one per namespace, though).
My personal opinion would be that nominations from the latter category are rare enough that a separate process isn't needed. Hence, my preference for PFD. Other thoughts welcome. Radiant_>|< 11:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • It boils down to this. First, it was proposed to rename VFD to clear up once and for all that it is not a vote. This was rejected a couple of times because it would be too much work. Then it was accepted, and a discussion was held on what the new name should be, and whether to keep wikispace pages in that process. It was PFD for a while, then it turned into AFD. So it is factually incorrect that VFD was renamed to clarify it was only for articles, as that was only an issue with one of the proposed names after it had already been decided it should be renamed. >Radiant< 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, so then it seems we are in agreement that VFD was renamed to remove the term "voting" from its title. >Radiant< 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the term here is "violent agreement". Sorry for the inconvenience. >Radiant< 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "David Levy/Archive2".