User talk:David Levy/Archive3

Active discussions

Image:Mahan Air.gifEdit

Hello! Can't you delete image:Mahan Air.gif ? We already have commons:image:Mahan Air logo.gif. Thank you! - 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting my suggestionsEdit

Re In the news, thanks for agreeing that the significant news should lead, in this particular case, five students being killed. Also, thanks for deleting the figure 10 but I notice you nevertheless still insisted in the edit summary 10 "*is* the total number of victims". In the interests of accuracy, let me point out that our article says five died and five were critical. Right, but that does not mean 10 were shot. In fact, the article says three were admitted to Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, four to Children's Hospital in Philadelphia and one to Christiana Hospital in Delaware. Add the three who died at the school, and that doesn't equal 10. I am puzzled why you would think it illogical to mention students and hostages when students were in a hostage situation, but never mind, it reads ok now. Moriori 07:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Fine with me. Do you think we should add a link to DDV or such? >Radiant< 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Page VietnamEdit

Can you help me ? to insert link interwiki Vietnam: vi:Trang chính into main page of English . Thank you a lot ! NTT Vietnam

In the news chronological orderEdit

Hi David. I saw that you put the chess item up on ITN. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, the next few edits suceeded in messing up the chronological order. In the editing window it is currently labelled as "12 October", when in fact it should be "13 October". Would you be able to fix this? The relevant edits are you added it, P. F. Lai incorrectly changes date and chronological order and removes picture. There was then a sequence where Golbez added stuff that was already there, and then reverted. You then removed it, and The Tom added it back... Did you remove the chess item because it was near the bottom (I note it wasn't right at the bottom), or because you wanted to avoid more than one sports entry? What do you think about restoring the chess item to where it originally was (above the Moon entry), and letting it fall off the page naturally as more items come in? I wouldn't normally quibble about things like this, but P. F. Lai changing the date it was added (even though I'm sure it was a genuine mistake) seemed to have had (or will soon have) the effect of accelerating it falling off the template, which seems a bit unfair. Carcharoth 12:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore the above. P. F. Lai has acknowledged and corrected the mistake. Carcharoth 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


My script is in the process of correcting this by replacing "tl" with "tlu" so the links work properly. PoccilScript 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


The "it" is wholly unnecessary. It basically reminds people that we're referring to the subject of the sentence (the test), which was already established three words earlier. We can lose that comma as well. -- Steel 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I ran this past a few (British) people who know more about these kind of things than I do and they said that both versions (with and without the it) are acceptable. If it's incorrect in American English without the it then it's probably best to leave it in, considering British English doesn't seem to mind which is used. -- Steel 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: VandalismEdit

I've given them one last warning, since that appears to be standard practice. At this rate, though, they'll be the first person I've ever had to block in my nearly three years of being a sysop at various wikis. It really puzzles me that they'd make many productive edits at Wikipedia yet treat Meta the way they do. Anyways, thanks for keeping an eye on things, and I'll be checking back on them periodically. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Language templateEdit

I am disappointed that once again Raul has cut the Language template at Template:Wikipedialang which you had lengthened to the satisfaction of a number of other language Wiki users. I cannot understand his constant vendetta. The template has already been massively reduced. Why do key up and coming non-Western languages have to be excluded? Tfine80 19:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you recently reverted my improvements on WP:IAR. These are not major changes; they are simply explanations and clarifications. Please talk to me if you have any issues with the minor useful additions I am making, and I will accommodate it into the article. Also, please allow me more time before reverting; it is very distributive in my contributions. Reply back on this talk page and I will respond promptly. Thank you.

Hi, it's me again. If you were to create an account, you could have a Sandbox where you could work on some drafts of the article and present this on the Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules. By working in your own sandbox, nobody would disturb you during your edits and you can make interesting and perhaps innovative changes which could possibly be disruptive if carried out on the actual article. Heligoland 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are being far too cautious. If you allow me the time to work, you will find that I have done nothing disruptive. Please revert the article back. Please also read Talk.
The decision is now out of my hands. It's up to David, what with him being an admin and all. My only concern is that users visiting WP:IAR might arrive to find an article which is in the middle of your facelift process. As I've said, I'm most satisfied that your not vandalising and what I'm about to say clearly isn't your intention, but without discussing your changes on the talk page, you run the risk of posting material which is not accurate and which could mislead anybody reading it. As something like WP:IAR is an important rule and guideline for Wikipedia, any changes need to be agreed upon and any future versions of the page need to be proof read before going live. Best Wishes Heligoland 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"your facelift process."

"Without discussing your changes on the talk page, you run the risk of posting material which is not accurate and which could mislead anybody reading it."

  • This is a risk of the entire Wikipedia project, but I'm sure you, being an admin and all, could understand that.

"any changes need to be agreed upon"

  • Of course, though the additions I am making are not changing the policy, and are therefore not violating anything.

"and any future versions of the page need to be proof read before going live"

  • This is a false statement. Users have improve and made changes without having every single edit discussed. Check the history to see for yourself, please.

Again, you are being far too cautious, and I hope I hear from you quickly. Thank you again.

Your changes to the page (which is not an "article") are far from minor. Several of your ideas (adding the word "discourage," placing the entire policy in a "nutshell" box, significantly expanding the page's length) have been rejected by the community. You also have failed to follow our style guide. (In particular, some of your headings were incorrectly formatted.)
As I advised (and the page itself advises), please propose these revisions on the talk page before proceeding.
As Heligoland noted, it generally isn't a good idea to experiment on active pages (by saving changes and seeing what requires "fixing"). Please use the "Show preview" button (and attempt to arrive at a working version) before pressing the "Save page" button. Heligoland also was correct in stating that a sandbox would be useful in this situation. You could experiment to your heart's content and present the results to the community when you're ready. If you'd like, I'd be happy to create a sandbox for you.
Heligoland was incorrect in implying that administrators (including me) possess the authority to overrule the editorial decisions made by other editors. My reversion of the page (performed without the special "rollback" function afforded to sysops) carried no more weight than Heligoland's. It was not an administrative act, but it did reflect my knowledge of the community and its procedures.
Your latest message on my talk page (posted as I was typing the above) seems to be based upon the mistaken impression that Heligoland's most recent reply was written by me. You also incorrectly claimed that you "are not changing the policy." In fact, you added a word ("discourage") that alters the policy's meaning in a manner rejected by the community.
I disagree with your implication that you've been treated discourteously. Heligoland has politely attempted to assist you (as I'm doing now).
On an semi-related note, please sign your posts on talk pages. Please also be more patient before declaring that a "mistake" has been made and falsely implying that a dispute has been mutually resolved. It took a while for me to type this reply. Thank you. —David Levy 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your changes to the page (which is not an "article") are far from minor. Several of your ideas (adding the word "discourage," placing the entire policy in a "nutshell" box, significantly expanding the page's length) have been rejected by the community. You also have failed to follow our style guide. (In particular, some of your headings were incorrectly formatted.)
As I advised (and the page itself advises), please propose these revisions on the talk page before proceeding.
As Heligoland noted, it generally isn't a good idea to experiment on active pages (by saving changes and seeing what requires "fixing"). Please use the "Show preview" button (and attempt to arrive at a working version) before pressing the "Save page" button. Heligoland also was correct in stating that a sandbox would be useful in this situation. You could experiment to your heart's content and present the results to the community when you're ready. If you'd like, I'd be happy to create a sandbox for you.
Heligoland was incorrect in implying that administrators (including me) possess the authority to overrule the editorial decisions made by other editors. My reversion of the page (performed without the special "rollback" function afforded to sysops) carried no more weight than Heligoland's. It was not an administrative act, but it did reflect my knowledge of the community and its procedures.
Your latest message on my talk page (posted as I was typing the above) seems to be based upon the mistaken impression that Heligoland's most recent reply was written by me. You also incorrectly claimed that you "are not changing the policy." In fact, you added a word ("discourage") that alters the policy's meaning in a manner rejected by the community.
I disagree with your implication that you've been treated discourteously. Heligoland has politely attempted to assist you (as I'm doing now).
On an semi-related note, please sign your posts on talk pages. Please also be more patient before declaring that a "mistake" has been made and falsely implying that a dispute has been mutually resolved. It took a while for me to type this reply. Thank you. —David Levy 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. It would be nice if I know what to call you. I'm Nick, by the way. Just a couple of notes to add to this before I disappear for a little bite to eat. I'm not an administrator but I don't feel comfortable reverting an edit made by an administrator. David has been approved by the Wikipedia community, we believe David to have the knowledge and attitude to maintain Wikipedia and for him to make such decisions is, in my opinion, more legitimate than any edits made by myself, someone who has been approved by nobody. I know that I could, if I so choose, revert any of the edits made by any of the administrators today to the article, but I would not feel comfortable with this and I will now retire from this discussion totally. I would say, in a parting note, that although you aren't changing policy, the wording on pages can be ambigious and I, as a Scottish editor may interpret something differently to an English, American, Canadian or Australian editor, due to variances in the English language. That's why it's important, in my opinion, that edits to important rules and guidelines are agreed in advance by the community here, where opinion can be solicited from the wider community and where any ambiguity can be spotted in advance and worked out.

I don't feel I am being too cautious, WP:IAR is an important rule and I feel that any edits to the page need to be double checked before the page goes live. Anyway, must dash. Best Wishes Heligoland 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I also thank you for acknowledging that I am not changing policy, but there will always be those that disagree. "The wording on pages [is] ambigious" and that is more reason for me to improve it, and if others disgree with certain words I retrieve directly from Jimbo and official policies themselves, they can always talk with me. I am very open, and am glad to see that others have contribute without the difficulty that I am having to deal with.
I am still waiting for David to make a reply (which is talking forever), and I could be working on WP:IAR as we speak. Well, Have fun eating! 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Problems you have:

"(adding the word "discourage," "You also incorrectly claimed that you "are not changing the policy." In fact, you added a word ("discourage")..."

  • Please read: Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset
  • It states, "Ignore all rules - if the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them."
  • Therefore, it is not a "claim," it is a reality.

"...that alters the policy's meaning in a manner rejected by the community."

  • You see, now this is a claim-- a false claim.

"...have been rejected by the community."

  • User:xaosflux was helping; he/she did not reject it nor have any other besides yourself.

"(In particular, some of your headings were incorrectly formatted.)"

& DO Not Bite.

  • Also, please give me the specifics you are talking about.

"You also have failed to follow our style guide."

"As I advised (and the page itself advises), please propose these revisions on the talk page before proceeding."

  • The page does not advise that.

"Please use the "Show preview" button (and attempt to arrive at a working version) before pressing the "Save page" button."

  • That sounds like a solid idea. Will do.

"You could experiment to your heart's content"

  • I am not "experimenting;" this is how I work and if you have an issue with that, then it is your own fault, and I am sad that you cannot understand and respect how other people, who are not you, contribute to Wikipedia. As I had stated, I will use the "Show preview" button next time, but that doesn't mean you had to revert it again.

"Heligoland was incorrect in implying that administrators (including me) possess the authority to overrule the editorial decisions made by other editors."

  • Of course not, admins are equal to any other users on Wikipedia, no worse, no better.

"Please also be more patient before declaring that a "mistake" has been made and falsely implying that a dispute has been mutually resolved"

  • Have not stated a "mistake." It was "appears to have been a mistake," as he can properly see from the history page.

That should be a detailed reply to yours. Hopefully, it will bring a bit of reason and clarification to you. 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Look! I signed. But will not sign everything as it is not needed, nor does it violate any policies.

Quick reply before reading what you stated. Please feel free to write and edit anything on the WP:IAR! Thank you very much!

Replied on my user talk. See.

Please also go to the Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules where I have started a topic for people who ave problems with the improvements.

Adding "Contents" to Main PageEdit

Hi, David. Does anything else need to happen before Wikipedia:Contents can be added to the Main Page? Rfrisbietalk 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles on main pageEdit

Can you tell me how I can view the article on the main page. I want to write a featured article. Well, Can administrators only write the featured articles on the main page. Sushant gupta 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I was saying "hello" to someone I know. I understand this is still permitted; do correct me if I am in error. — Dan | talk 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I know the person. I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be. The labelling of my comment with the "unsigned" template was sanctimonious and unnecessary. Though I daren't go as far as to ask that you assume good faith, I would appreciate some degree of decency in questioning or reversing my actions. Good grief. — Dan | talk
In response to No. 1, I thought I had done that above, in particular in the part which read "I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be." If not, here goes again: I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be.
With regard to No. 2, perhaps you might have asked me what I was doing. I've been around a while; I should hope it's not generally feared that I might turn vandal at any moment, unless my every action not be scrutinized carefully. I apologize, humbly etc., for having 'left you scratching your head', though I maintain that a simple note, giving me the opportunity to clarify, would have been more in order.
I am curious, in any case, how your piercing gaze attenuated itself to this particular talk page. This user has done nothing of significance. There's no reason to think I would pick a new user out of the blue to confuse and harass. I am, as you seem to have been before, thoroughly mystified at your outraged response to my entirely insignificant action. — Dan | talk 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't really concerned about how anyone would know why I'd done it, as I did not expect in the least that anyone would care. I removed the welcome message because it treats the user as a fourth-grader, what with patronizing diction and a photograph of a cupcake. I did not wish my friend, an intelligent adult, to be put off by this impression of Wikipedia. The edit summary is apparently an automatic thing; in fact I left the edit summary box blank.
Also, I don't know if you meant to suggest it, but by no means do I deserve the assumption of good faith more than anybody else simply because of who I am. I should hope you treat everyone else with more dignity than you did me. — Dan | talk 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have little regard for the "general rule" and doing what's "proper" when the reasons for doing such are not relevant to the situation; nor do I care about this issue enough to continue arguing about it. I beg pardon for having wasted your time. — Dan | talk 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is 293 kilobytes long.Edit

I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve here. If I create a redirect, what is the point in calling deliberate attention to the fact that I was too lazy to type an edit summary explaining it? As for vandalism, if one vandal sees another vandal's edit summary and already knows that it's automatic, then the he'll probably type something uninformative to prevent it from taking effect. Furthermore there are vandalism reversion bots that depend on the edit summaries as previously written, for hints when looking for stuff to revert. Additionally the extra byte clutter results in fewer spaces being available for the informative text. The default wasn't broken, so I really have no idea why you would change it. —freak(talk) 08:33, Nov. 17, 2006 (UTC)

All vandalism is "deliberate", unless it's accidental. However, some vandalisms are more serious than others. For example, replacing a page with "FUCKKKKKK" is more serious than adding '''Bold text''' at the bottom. Eventually there will be more complex autosummaries, but they will be useless if anybody watching recent changes (which includes a non-trivial portion of vandals) is constantly reminded to circumvent them. —freak(talk) 08:49, Nov. 17, 2006 (UTC)
Because they're not looking at their own edits. I thought I'd explained that. —freak(talk) 09:05, Nov. 17, 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was done 4 days ago [1]. I can see your concern about lack of administrator awareness, however. Assuming it were feasible to immediately inform all administrators of every software change, would you consider it a bad thing for there awareness to remain a step ahead of vandals' awareness (even if only for a short while, after which everyone will have figured it out). I would strongly consider asking the developers to add an "admin-sitenotice" or somesuch, if it helps keep the WP:BEANS from being spilled everytime a clever, ground-breaking new feature is added. —freak(talk) 09:41, Nov. 17, 2006 (UTC)

The quality of your arguments has nothing to do with my biological need for sleep. That aside, if our goal is awareness, please examine my changes to the following pages and tell me if you see them as a suitable alternative to polluting the individual edit comments:

P.S. You have not archived your talk page in 14 months. —freak(talk) 00:30, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I've been reverted [2]. Assuming we can use a less verbose message on that page (and use the past-tense edit summaries), would that be an acceptable compromise, or would I be giving an inch to lose a mile? —freak(talk) 00:57, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too analytical, but I think if I was a new user, "page was blanked" is an observation I would make when restoring its content (reverting the blanking) rather than when actually blanking it. I think "blanked the page" would be better. —freak(talk) 01:16, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

As for the pseudo-section link, if the MediaWiki:Histlegend refers specifically to the symbol used, a link shouldn't be necessary. Also, please be aware that numerical character entity references will not be properly unicodified in edit summaries, so it would be necessary to use a literal arrow, or whatever symbol is being used. —freak(talk) 01:26, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

I assume then, that you intend to use the WP:AES shortcut for just that purpose. Better do some brainstorming and make sure there's not anything else it might stand for, and probably better protect the redirect as well. —freak(talk) 01:39, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

[3] look okay? Hopefully we are done dealing with this issue now. —freak(talk) 01:56, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

Thanks for taking care of the troll vandalizing our user pages. They really are a pain in a Wikipedian's side. (Iuio 06:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Did you hear? The troll has finally ben blocked. Let's hope he does not vandalize again. (Iuio 06:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Consensus on Main Page linksEdit

I forgot all about this thread. I concur with the proposal to remove the searching link and add the contents link.

Talk:Main Page/Archive 82#Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page

I guess all that's left is for the change to be made. Will you do that please?  The Transhumanist 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Done.  :-) —David Levy 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!    The Transhumanist 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering bugzilla request for "Complete list" featureEdit

Hi. Thanks again for your involvement in putting "Complete list" at the bottom of the interwikis on the English Main Page. I'm considering putting in a bugzilla request for a feature to allow something like that to be easily done on any page. See meta:Meta:Babel "# 19 Suggestion re handling long interwiki (interlanguage) lists". What do you think? --Coppertwig 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes...Edit

...made to KYW-TV, WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC-TV, WNYW, and WWOR-TV need to be explained further. Until then, I've reverting these articles back to their previous versions. Rollosmokes 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. First, there's A Man in Black with his "anti-image gallery" this. Everyone who writes for a living KNOWS that single-digit numbers are written as WORDS, not as numbers. And, if Wikipedia is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia", then perhaps we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias. Newspapers write single-digits numerically to save precious space. Encylopedias are written differently. So, to say that "channel nine" and "Nine Broadcast Plaza" is NOT CORRECT is a load of crap, regardless of what the Manual of Style says. Rollosmokes 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what happens when you have a kid in charge. Are you a professional writer? Probably not. Still, this nitpicking is sickening. Wikipedia is coming very close to that "No-Fun Zone" for me, as those of us who wish to make professional contributions are being stymied by those who whish to enforce their silly doctrines. Rollosmokes 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How are my comments "uncivil"? I didn't use profanity or any other kind of threatening language. Nor do I practice WP:OWN, as you falsely claim. I am all about accuracy and professionalism. And, that goes for my opinion on how single-digit numbers should be written.

As we did with the whole "UPN vs. United Paramount Network" thing several months back, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

And, one more thing: read the Chicago Manual of Style. Then see if Wikipedia (and you) are right after all. Rollosmokes 06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Wikipedia should follow the Chicago Manual or some other OFFICIAL style guide, rather than attempt to make up its own unilaterally. I am a semi-professional writer, my wife is a professional writer, we have friends who write for a living...and all agree with me on the single-digit number thing. And, speaking of which, it wasn't a problem initially when I introduced this. Only now is it a problem, and for you.
I offer this quote, from the Penguin Handbook, second edition:
In formal writing spell out any number than can be expressed in one or two words, as well as any number, regardless of length, at the beginning of a sentence. Also, hyphenate two-word numbers from twenty-one to ninety-nine.
In scentific reports and some business writing that requires the frequent use of numbers, using numerals more often is appropriate. Most styles do not write out words in year, a date, an address, a page number, the time of day, decimals, sums of money, phone numbers, rates of speed, or the scene and act of a play. Use numerals instead.
MLA, Chicago Style, and APA ALL utilize this format, which I adhere to completely. There is some wiggle room, but generally we stick to it.
Next...I am at least ten years older than you are. That, my friend, makes you a kid as far as I'm concerned. And, in this case, I can't take you seriously because you have much to experience. You probably just got out of high school, whereas I already have been down the college road on which you're currently travelling, and I learned from that experience. I am a completely different writer now than I was when I was your age. Some advice -- get some experience in the real world first before wholly susbscribing to a certain philosophy, technical or otherwise.
Lastly, I don't have to answer your trivial Encyclopedia Brittanica/Chanel No. 5/1-Naphthylamine comments because they're moot as far as this issue goes. Rollosmokes 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Automatic edit summariesEdit

Hi there; I have come to your page because the edit summary of the automatic edit page lists you as first contributor. If this is not so, please tell me and I'll go away. There are now several questions posted on the talk-page of this article, several, although not all, from me. Is it possible to get some answers to them?--Anthony.bradbury 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summariesEdit

Hi there; OK, thanks, I'll chase Andrew up.--Anthony.bradbury 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My Reverts to WNBCEdit

I did not realize I was removing valid edits when I reverted others, and that is my fault. Sorry about that to you and everyone else in the Wikipedia community. aido2002 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I just felt like I should say something.aido2002 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem! aido2002 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Most of our back-and-forth with Asher is archived to User talk:Asher Heimermann/ArchiveA; we've been cutting him a huge amount of slack for several days now. I like the kid, he's like an eager puppy who honestly wants to help out. Thanks for posting that note to his page; I hope he takes it to heart. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I asked for him to be blocked on AIV twice, and was told to leave him alone - he was just a kid. So a few minutes after his last warning he's back to welcoming new users - so much for being co-operative. Earlier today, I joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service to do something contructive instead of just fighting vandals. So he must be stalking me, since shortly after he joined also, if he isn't banned, I'm quitting the WikiProject, since I don't want to be near him - it will be just too frustrating. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did pull him from AIV once, but only for procedural reasons -- at that point in time, he hadn't received the standard warning templates that would justify a block. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There was another AIV I posted at some point, and it was processed and rejected on the basis that he was just a kid. I think in months of editing, this is only the second time I've AIVed someone twice. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about the other one. And, seriously, I agonized about removing that entry from AIV. But with no test3 or test4 warnings on his page, no admin would have blocked him at that point in time. If a block was rejected another time because "he's just a kid", that's a bogus reason. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

no reply needed (please)Edit

Be aware that I reverted back to the format we had previously agreed upon, even though "rv" directly above your edit looks as if I was directly contradicting you. Of course if the arrows do look too similar at that font-size, any other symbol would be fine by me, just nothing obnoxiously long. —freak(talk) 05:36, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

Template MagicEdit

[removed example]

Of course these are simple examples for what I want to do, but the basic idea is there. There are templates that are called from about 130 pages some of which are lists of information about the other 125 pages. The data passed to the four templates is basically the same (well 3 of the templates use subsets of the data used in the 4th template). It would be nice to have one place to edit all this data. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction for documentation (if you know of something that could help solve this problem. Thx in adv --Trödel 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, User talk:Ligulem was able to provide me with a potential solution --Trödel 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good workEdit

Blocking vandals is good. But, do you ever unblock them? The mission 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WNBC ArticleEdit

It wasn't a personal attack, I was saying I think that the idea that this is all that is going on there is stupid. We have discussed it, none of us changed our minds, so I guess this goes on until someone stops caring. aido2002 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WNBC ImagesEdit

Re-uploading them was not "entirely inappropriate." AManinBlack deleted them, and said in the deletion log that he did so because they were orphaned. Because they should not have been, and were orphaned by him, re-uploading and restoring them to the page was the right course of action to take. aido2002 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with the fair use policy, so feel free to add the info. The copyrights are held by NBC Universal. aido2002 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the image was by no means the correct course of action to take, the only real issue was the lack of attribution, which you could have added. aido2002 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We talked about this. the rationale is that they help the article, they illustrate what we say, and are vital. aido2002
They are vital for the same reason pictures are vital in a history textbook. Go after the original uploader about the fair use rationale thing, I am the wrong person to talk to for it. amaninblack should not have deleted the images, he orphaned them, and several people were against it. He did not have a legitimate reason to, I hope you can agree with me on this. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Spell CheckEdit

Ok, I wikk make sure I don's edit such pages. Srry bout that, but when you are doing something boring and repetitive, it is pretty hard to notice such changes but, I wikk keep an eye out


symode09 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, but that is not the greatest issue; the problem is that the gray on the cupola has contrast issues with the blue of the world. As the Earth's blue gets darker, the gray gets lighter, and there is a point at which the too colors blur into each other, which I personally don't like. Titoxd(?!?) 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please helpEdit

Hi, I am trying to give Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism a makeover. I would apprecaite your help as I hope this format will be the standard for wikiproject pages. The main problem I have right now is the little "Contents" template that apears and is distrupting the clean cut look, it doesnt apear on the main page. I would also apprecaite some general tips. Thanks. FrummerThanThou 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup pagesEdit

Somone removed the language about talk pages on December 10. I don't see how that constitutes longstanding consensus. If you are referring to a discussion in which consensus was reached that I somehow missed, I would be much obliged if you could point me to it. dryguy 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I'm aware there have been various discussions about where tags should go. What seems to me to be missing is the consensus to require templates to go on talk pages. There have been a number of discussions in which no consensus has been reached regarding the placement of meta-tags on article pages (these discussions are also findable). This was the reason for my edit of March 20, 2006. As to the claim that I did so "unilaterally"; this edit has gone without change or comment until it was removed for consistency with Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. You are the first to object to my edit on the basis of its actual content. dryguy 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of the discussions I was thinking of in which no consensus was reached. Again, I was not acting "unilaterally", but I was definitely removing a restriction to which I object, and for which there is no consensus. dryguy 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for my dyslexic editing. You are correct that I made the change in November. You also mentioned the March edit which was still in my mind at the time I was writing above. In any event, there was no discussion for the March edit either, unless I missed it. Without discussion, there is no consensus. dryguy 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup tags are a subset of all meta tags. So far, you haven't cited any specific discussion that would convince me of your claim that there is consensus regarding the location of any cleanup tags, much less all of them. Anyway, if you are arguing that the discussion for all tags is not related to the discussion for a specific subset, then why do you also argue that if discussion for some cleanup tags indicates they belong on the article pages, then it follows that all cleanup tags belong on the article pages? dryguy 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm merely going by your edit, which specifically says "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article" and your comments above. You even put all in bold. If that isn't what you meant, then would you accept the following changes to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup:
Current: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article. Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity."
Proposed: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup, as noted in the instructions for each specific tag. Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dryguy (talkcontribs) 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Lack of discussion could just as easily mean that few editors care about this issue. In that case it is up to those who do to discuss it and come to consensus, regardless of the timeframe. dryguy 02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The current wording is instruction creep. It prescribes a universal solution of putting a tag at the top of an article page as the default, when this is often not the best solution. Also, based on various discussions regarding meta tags, one of which I cited (there are others, but I don't have time for further discussion tonight, so I can't look them up now), there is significant opposition to certain uses of metatags on article pages. Briefly: they add clutter to articles which is minimized if they are put in talk space, they are often added and rarely removed (as evidenced by their growth rate, indicating they aren't often causing articles to comply with the tags' various requests), and they usually contribute to poor layout of articles in which they are used. Have a great evening (or morning, or whatever)! dryguy 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned template bug?Edit

Re: your edit to {{Unsigned}}, the template as currently implemented results in the #if parser function being placed on the page when the template is subst'd (e.g.: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NonExistentUser (talkcontribs) 00:11 22 March 4455.). Ideally, shouldn't the parser be subst'd in the template code as well? The page is protected, so either way, I wouldn't be able to change it, but I thought you might. Thanks. --Fru1tbat 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge and would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? I beleive this wikipedia sister project would be developed into an extremwely valuable resoruce not only for achieving knowledge of major languages but also other world languages which are not always readily available to learn. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

UPN vandalEdit

Thanks for taking care of him. Can you also take a look at this? And who is the original vandal? --AAA! (AAAAAAAAAAAA) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I might watch some of the targeted pages. Can you give me a list? --AAA! (AAAAAAAAAAAA) 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Caught another. --AAA! (AAAAAAAAAAAA) 13:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the move. --Ineffable3000 23:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi David, you mentioned on Talk:MP that there's ongoing discussions regarding ITN. Where's that taking place now? I must have missed this. (Reply here on your user talk, I'm watching) Cheers, Monotonehell 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Please see Template talk:In the news#James Brown death. —David Levy 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Bah! How'd I miss that? Thanks David. --- Monotonehell 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

UPN vandal, huff 'emEdit

Can't we just block all these IPs (For at least 1 year)? Also, I've discovered some of the socks are proxies. --AAA! (AAAAAAAAAAAA) 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, these are the proxies. Type in their IP address at this site, and look at the box "Is proxy":

"All categories"Edit

Hi, David, I run one of the bots that dates various ceanup tags, and I have been thinking that it would be better to change the templates to get rid of the "all articles" cats, and replace the current function of the bland category with an "undated" category. The only risk is that it will encourage editors to add the date parameter, which means more errors. For me the important thing is that the undated categories (whatever they are called) are subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. The other pending improvement may be to allow the wikify, cleanup and uncat templates to accept a date= paramete as well as a default. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:47 27 December 2006 (GMT).

ITN debarkle.. againEdit

Hey David, do you think we'll come to any kind of constructive outcome with regards to ITN Guidelines this time? I instigated it, but don't hold much hope, lol. --Monotonehell 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayles Ice ShelfEdit

I agree with Centrx that the article doesn't include enough current context to qualify for ITN inclusion, but I've listed it at Template talk:Did you know. —David Levy 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just thinking about doing the same thing tomorrow. Oh, well... You beat me by about 12 hours. :-) Good night. -- PFHLai 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

His/her block has expired, and is still doing that UPN vandalism. I've given him/her an only warning. Next time he/she makes another false move, please block him/her. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Info talk.png and Image:Info non-talk.pngEdit

The summary for these images says that it has been "tweaked" to display the background properly on browsers such as IE. How has this been done? I created a new image,   which I would like to use to replace the most common current one that doesn't really match the rest of our icons, but I don't want to make it a step backward as far as background colors goes. -- Renesis (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I will try to get that done. I have a couple more questions -- When Wikipedia generates smaller sizes of the full image, does it lose this parameter? (In other words, do I have to make the image the size I will be using or not?) Second, when you say release it into the public domain, you are saying as opposed to CC? I don't know much about image licenses -- can you tell me why we'd rather have PD over CC? Thanks again. -- Renesis (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP's Main PageEdit

Being less WP active in the last couple of months, I find myself entering through the Main Page (rather than my browser's bookmarks) more frequently and, whenever I do so, I continue to be impressed with the overall presentation of our "front page". Thanks for your perseverance, intellect and gentle (sometimes) persuasion during those times of change. A very merry New Year to you and to those that are close. --hydnjo talk 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:All uncategorised pagesEdit

I understand that I am not voting and that I am not limited by the original nomination. When I looked at the category, there were 3 articles in it. I realized that you mentioned that they were likely to be moved during the course of the nomination (that's actually why I went and looked). I also realize that a merge of an empty category generally works the same as a delete. I'm not sure what wasn't clear about in my previous comment. I am comfortable with my Merge opinion in this case. ~ BigrTex 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mummified head pictured?Edit

I've never seen an FA image captioned like that on the main page. Is this some brand-new procedure I missed? I don't see anything similar on any of the past or future main-page FA boxes. -Silence 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot RFAEdit

My apologies for the misunderstanding. It's not about dragon's flight, it's about anybody, regardless of who they are. It's in my nature not to trust too much power to one source. I replied as such on the rfa, and once again i'm sorry for any confusion in my meaning.Just H 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You distrust everyone (including the most trusted members of the community) indiscriminately, and yet you complain when you believe that people are failing to assume good faith on your part. Does that make sense to you? —David Levy 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't distrust people, I distrust the system as it is now, which includes everybody. The fact that those people acted in such a way towards my comment is proof to me.
Even the best of us can become corrupt and hostile in an environment that fosters it, which I think is rampant for alot of Wikipedia right now. Until that's fixed, I don't trust anything with more power of the encyclopedia. Just H 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree since you don't want to trust my distrust of ochlocracy. A individual on their own and an individual within a group are two completely separate things, especially when conformity seems to be a forced norm. Just H 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss this further excluding the bot, please feel free. I would like nothing more than to make the collective completely trustworthy, or at least as close as humanly possible. Right now, there's just way too much margin for error in my opinion. Just H 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit ConflictEdit

My apologies on the clipping there. Back and forth discussions can get messy at times. Just H 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad. Hopefully i'll be able to put my statements more clearly in the future, thanks again for the conversation today. Just H 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by UPNEdit

Please semi-protect. More UPN vandal crap. --AAA! (AAAA) 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

G4techTV CanadaEdit

It IS G4techTV CANADA. Don't change it back. 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Check out Look at their press releases!

Hmm, I'm pretty sure it showed your name next to the history entry of who changed it back to G4techTV (Canada). Sorry about that. 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ITN - How about...Edit

the pic you mentioned

?--Monotonehell 05:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about something along those lines, but it seems like a bit of a stretch (in terms of relevance and linguistic elegance). I don't feel comfortable performing such an edit without clear consensus, but feel free to discuss this on the talk page. —David Levy 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm tempted to leave Pelosi's portrait on all year just to annoy the whiners ;) --Monotonehell 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, I'm a Democrat, and even I'm sick of that image. :) —David Levy 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL gawd, what's with all the team politics in the States? That kind of thing just leads to hubris. Don't categorise yourself, think for yourself. ;) --Monotonehell 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

About the redirectEdit

Redirect redirection in the official name and resign from the redirection as a visitor is confused.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#What is the status on this namechange?Edit

You may remember me as a former adversary over "Wikisource - The free(?) library". But in more recent matters I seemed to have sparked some criticism of your actions in the above thread and thought it only proper that you should be made aware of it. Since I cannot see that anyone has brought it up with on your talk page, here is a heads-up.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfAEdit

I see that you recently commented on my RfA of about a year ago. My apologies for the confusion. You said that you "can't condone the inclusion of toilet humor." Were you by any chance referring to "No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end"? Aecis No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can rest assured then, because I've changed it again :) I swap between quotes and lyrics I like every now and then. I've had I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive, Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984 and No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end. I've now found another victim :) AecisBravado 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

UPN Vandal UpdateEdit

He now has members:

More socksEdit

I have also updated his entry at RFI, but I think this vandal qualifies for Long Term Abuse.

And please look at this. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but could you also delete User:Delariondavis3? Before I redirected it to his talk page the only content was an imitation of my own page. --AAA! (AAAA) 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what the hell...Edit

The coveted Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I give you this barnstar for helping me take care of the UPN vandal. Thanks! ^_^ --AAA! (AAAA) 12:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

They just keep coming in...Edit

Seriously, this is getting too hard for me. Do you think I should become an admin? --AAA! (AAAA) 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A few more:

Well, this is new...Edit

Also, I'm going away on holiday for 3 days, so you'll have to take care of the vandal by yourself. Sorry about that. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN reversionEdit

I don't think your reversion is correct. Reports most certainly should be in present tense (and it is), but I don't believe the same is true for conducts. Read the sentence in question and you'll see what I'm talking about. Or, compare it with the equally confusing sentence...

A scientist reports that the universe begins a long time ago

-- tariqabjotu 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Long Term AbuseEdit

I think the UPN vandal now qualifies for Long Term Abuse. Should we submit an entry? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try and get a hotmail account. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I now have an e-mail account. Send me one! --AAA! (AAAA) 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt FrostEdit

a ginger twat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


I am contacting you because you are the recent editor of wikipedia's ownership policy. Could you please clarify is it possible for a user to take ownership of a particular page? thank you (Bradleigh 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Main page (copied from this thread)Edit

I read your comments on Lar's talk page. FYI, no administrators are "in charge" of the main page. Its precise design was determined via months of nightmarish debate and ratified by an 18-day poll/discussion with over 900 participants. —David Levy 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is the information the AFMP project needs. The many AFMP 2006 and AFMP 2007 suggestions to alter the main page fixed text came from a lack of understanding of what it would take to implement such a suggestion. If we just list a rule that main page fixed text will not be changed as part of the AFMP project, editors will still suggest such changes. If we also add to the project a description of what it takes to change fixed page maintext with a link to the discussion you mention, I think it will reduce the number of such suggestions in future projects (AFMP 2008, AFMP 2009, etc.). Since you seem to know more about this issue than others on the project, it would be great if you would add the description to the project. Thanks. -- Jreferee 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I created this template as a prototype for discussion. Please discuss on Template_talk:Nutshell#Template:Nutshell2Dhaluza 04:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after waiting a day or so, nobody else seems to care enough to comment. Though the long dialog is probably too intimidating to invite any input. Do you really think it's an actual problem having it on the template space, or just a potential one? I have applied it on a page that was a good candidate for it's usage. The bullets remove the need to connect the two items with 'but' which is a word that reads kind of like a speed bump. Dhaluza 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I replied on my talk page since you moved the discussion there (suggesting merging the templates). Dhaluza 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention: Consensus issueEdit

Hi David. I've run into a confrontation not unlike those you and I have had in the past. Rather than edit war, I've kept my involvement in the debate on the page's talk page, but the other side will not listen to reason, and have forced their changes without reaching consensus first on the talk page. They've removed items from the list, and as you would put it, their actions "lack consensus". The items have been on the list since it was created in November of 2005. In the face of opposition to their removal, I assume that removing them would require the building of consensus to do so. Please take a look at talk:List of basic philosophy topics. I'd be very interested in your evaluation of the situation. There is a related discussion taking place at template talk:philosophy navigation, but that situation differs in two fundamental ways: one, that page is much smaller and the collection of links displayed upon it must be severely limited, and two, at least one of the links being discussed were added there relatively recently.

The links which were removed the List of basic philosophy topics without consensus were Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I look forward to your reply. (And I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak!)  :-) --The Transhumanist 08:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: OwnershipEdit

I have read the article in question and i have one final questions and i am asking you to answer it for me. Can a user take ownership of a article? Yes or No?? if yes, how? Thank you (Bradleigh 05:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

You know the drill...Edit

Thanks. Did you also get my email about him? --AAA! (AAAA) 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I see you've been experimenting with the above mentioned page (yes, I do watch the entire MediaWiki: namespace so i know of interface changes more quickly).

If I may make one suggestion: instead of using {{#ifexist:{{PAGENAME}}, why not {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}} as that would cause less bugs.

Thanks, GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protected article titleEdit

Needs some work, and I can't figure out how to fix it--see what happened when I added a subpage to the list. Chick Bowen 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Right--should have figured that out. We do use deletedpage in other namespaces from time to time, though, so this will be good. Incidentally, since there's no actual protected deleted page policy--it's just something we do--there's no reason not to proceed with this. Chick Bowen 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But I just meant that the process could be up and running at any point without interfering with {{deletedpage}}. Chick Bowen 21:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fool'sEdit

Me again. I stumbled across this page; you're doing it again... -- 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Another sock, new nameEdit

contributions - He has created pages that also need protected-deleting. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually I did, about a month ago, and several people complained to me that they missed my old signature, i.e. this one. So I put it back for now. I'll probably come up with something new eventually. >Radiant< 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose there is ample precedent for using colorful signatures (e.g. User:Starblind, User:Jtdirl), and some of us consider the colorfulness part of our wikidentity. The visually impaired do have special browser plugins available that e.g. increase color contrast. You are welcome to propose a guideline forbidding colorful signatures, or a feature request to abolish custom sigs, but such efforts have not met consensus in the past. I would quite possibly support such an effort, but until and unless there is actually consensus for this I fail to see why I should set an example for a notion that lacks consensus support. >Radiant< 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's very simple. I don't really like overly complex, flashy, lengthy or unreadable signatures. I do like my signature, which I do not consider particularly illegible, but ymmv. I'd be quite willing to abandon my sig if that would lead to a general abandoning of oc/f/l/u sigs. But, knowing this wiki, it won't, so I'm not going to remove my own sig if that doesn't actually change anything. As you say, that undoubtedly means I'm very inconsiderate, inhelpful, and not nice. >Radiant< 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titlesEdit

If this actually comes into wide use as a deleted page system, it may not be a bad idea to add something to Mediawiki:Common.js, that would block out the list of pages protected at the bottom of these lists to anons (or perhaps non autoconfirmeds), so not to give ideas. It is possible to do it now, but it depends on how such a system is organized. One big page? Also, what does this system do in terms of server load? Prodego talk 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When organized by topic like this, it gives ideas for misspellings (perhaps to someone who didn't think of that). It also clutters the page, which the cascade message says to come for more information. But pretty much I just want to mess with the js files ;-). Prodego talk 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted pageEdit

I have and Idea we could transfer that list of salted pages to the new format of trancludeing using the old timestamps that were in place before the attempted switch and solve all of the issues. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protected titleEdit

You might want to {{urlencode}} the parameter that gets fed into the activity log link in the template, so that it handles page names with spaces properly. Right now it looks funny and doesn't work on pages listed in Wikipedia:Protected titles/Multiple re-creation.

In summary I guess the following:

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}|{{{2}}}}}}} activity log]</span>

should be changed to

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}}}}} activity log]</span>

Flyingtoaster1337 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've written some documentation for the template at Template talk:Protected title. Please correct any errors as necessary. Flyingtoaster1337 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found another glitch in the template - the activity log link breaks if the namespace name has spaces. We need to urlencode that as well. :/ So the fixed activity log link part would be:

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:|}}{{{1}}}}}}} activity log]</span>

Flyingtoaster1337 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


See Template:Smiley and the 3 others linked there . If they were restricted to user-talkspace somehow I might be able to live with them (though not the animated ones), but they're already being used in many article-talkpages. Unprofessional, unnecessary, and visually-distracting. TfD\CSD would be appreciated. --Quiddity 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Emoticons? No templates, but it is encouragement.. --Quiddity 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


That is all. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed ITN itemEdit

Actually, Blnguyen was apparently referring to the {{totallydisputed}} template on the article. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't mean Haizum's complaint about the blurb, else I would have simply rephrased it. It was because the article is tagged {{TotallyDisputed}}. Usually DYK or ITN items with "red alert" tags like "cleanup" "no sources" "pov" and "factually innacurate" etc, are not allowed on the main page. That was my reasoning, the actual article. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For saving Special:RandomEdit

  The Editor's Barnstar
I award David Levy this Editor's Barnstar for coming up with an excellent kludge to protect non-existent pages and prevent deleted pages from polluting Special:Random. A million thanks. (I really, really wonder how you thought of such a terrific brilliant idea. :-) Flyingtoaster1337 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what was the big idea?Edit

No, seriously. Just because you are an admin that doesn't mean you are above other users. Without discussing with anyone, or asking for permission, or even wondering if it was a smart idea, you went to WikiProject Portugal and removed our main shortcut (WP:PT) and changed it to something that doesn't symbolize it. I'll have to ask that you provide me an actual reason for doing this.

All of the people under WikiProject Portugal refer to it as WP:PT, and that for a long while, so it doesn't make sense to change that. It's also the shorcut syntax used on other WikiProjects (e.g. WP:JA). If you need a shortcut for Protected titles I suggest that you use Wp:Pt or WP:PTs. I'm asking you to revert the changes.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 13:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You already assigned WP:Pt to Template:Protection templates when you took WP:PT from that page (which had used it for a longer duration than WikiProject Portugal has existed). Did you think that you were "above other users" when you did that "without discussing with anyone, or asking for permission, or even wondering if it was a smart idea"?
2. There were precisely 15 transclusions of the WP:PT shortcut. One was the documentation for Template:Protection templates at Wikipedia:Shortcuts that you never bothered to update. The other 14 (including the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal itself) were all posted by you.
3. The reason for this change is that major, general-interest project pages are more in need of such shortcuts than specialized WikiProjects (which probably shouldn't even be using the same shortcut format) are. See, for example, WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, whose WP:FC shortcut was taken for use by Wikipedia:Featured Content. In that instance, I did first raise the issue on the talk page (and no one objected). I wasn't about to do that in this case (given the fact that the redirect didn't belong to you in the first place). —David Levy 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Yes, but I did discuss the matter with some other users, albeit I regreted later not having brought the issue to Village Pump, which would have been the proper thing to do. Furthermore, we believed that Protection templates should use WP:Pt instead due to the "t" lower case.
2. I know of no way to check for transclusions, but I did go around looking for broken things and checking if anyone would complain or revert the change.
3. Is that so? If it's Wp policy, there's little I can do. It still doesn't change that you didn't ask anyone about this. As an admin, you should be the one setting an example.
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't start a fuss about this where you reverting WP:PT for Protection templates. WikiProject Portugal didn't exist when WP:PT was created. Protection templates used it because it was probably the first thing that came to the mind of the people behind it. However, I ask again that you be kind enough to consider reverting WP:PT for WP:Portugal. PT has always been an alias for Portugal, pretty much everywhere. Furthermore, members of WP:Portugal refer to the project by the sigla WP:PT.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:PT or WP:SPOKEN) 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S: And I'm sorry I've acted rudely when I first brought this issue up, but this has really pissed me off.
1. Where did you "discuss the matter with some other users"? It certainly wasn't at Template talk:Protection templates.
The shortcut style convention is to use all-uppercase lettering. (WP:Pt is unusual.)
2. The "What links here" link displays a list of all transclusions.
3. There is no formal "policy" regarding this matter, but the standard practice is that key project pages take precedence over WikiProjects. In my opinion, we shouldn't even be mixing the two; WikiProjects should adopt a dedicated prefix (such as "WPJ:"). This would make things much easier and less confusing for everyone.
4. People don't go around searching for pages to fit arbitrary abbreviations. King of Hearts wanted to create a shortcut for Template:Protection templates, so he used the most logical abbreviation. Yes, WikiProject Portugal did not yet exist (just as Wikipedia:Protected titles didn't exist until now).
5. You claim that "members of WP:Portugal refer to the project by the sigla WP:PT." I performed a Google search and found 10 pages from this site on which the "WP:PT" abbreviation is used without transclusion to reference WikiProject Portugal (though some of these are alongside the transclusions that I already updated and counted above). All of these were written by you.
6. As I said, I would have discussed this if the shortcut had belonged to you in the first place. I also would have done so if your WikiProject has adopted it more than a few months ago or if it had been in wide use. None of this was the case.
7. Apology accepted.  :-) —David Levy 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Two last requests for today...Edit

I promise I won't disturb you for the next five hours or more - I got to sleep soon. :)

But before that I've two requests related to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles. The first is to replace the code on that page with the version on the talk page (which I wrote after finally figuring out how {{protected title}} really works). Some of the pages were not protected with the old, incorrect code. The second is to delete Talk:Action potential/index.php, because it got re-created tonight and someone protected it the old way.

Thanks in advance. Flyingtoaster1337 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


You may want to review your block log. And Philwelch's, for that matter. -- Steel 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about this on ANI. -- Steel 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


See also [4]. Every user account in his block log for the last few months also seems to be a user he was in a dispute with and each has a corresponding ANI discussion admonishing him. It just seems each time to be a matter of no one thinking it worth it to spend the time to collect all the evidence, and to some extent people probably thought John Reid and Matthew Fenton "should" be blocked, despite the reason he used for it and his being altercated in a dispute with them making the blocks bogus. —Centrxtalk • 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Final cleanup of Template:Protected titleEdit

I think the template is quite satisfactory now but I have thought of some tidying up and enhancement that could be made.

Firstly, the template now checks whether "talk=no" using three different spellings; we could simplify it using {{lc:}} to lowercase the value so this part:


would become:


We can also do the same to the ns param, so this part:

{{#switch:{{{ns}}}|Talk|talk|Category talk|category talk|Help talk|help talk|Image talk|image talk|MediaWiki talk|mediaWiki talk|Portal talk|portal talk|Template talk|template talk|User talk|user talk|Wikipedia talk|wikipedia talk=

would become:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{ns}}}}}|talk|category talk|help talk|image talk|mediawiki talk|portal talk|template talk|user talk|wikipedia talk=

Lastly, I thought of cases like the GNAA and Encyclopedia Dramatica articles whereby the talk pages are also protected due to repeated trolling and unproductive discussion. Hiding the talk link might not work in this case since people can always link to the talk page from elsewhere, so I propose a protect-talk parameter which will transclude the talk page as well if "protect-talk=yes". If you wish to add it to the end of the template it might look like: (works only if talk is not set, and adds "(also protected)" after the transclusion)

{{#if:{{{talk|}}}||{{#if:{{{protect-talk|}}}|{{#switch:{{lc:{{{ns}}}}}|talk|category talk|help talk|image talk|mediawiki talk|portal talk|template talk|user talk|wikipedia talk=|{{:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}} talk:|Talk:}}{{{1}}}}}}} <small>(also protected)</small>|}}}}

Flyingtoaster1337 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Why did you close the debate as "recreated content"? The last time it was deleted was 2005... and recreated content is for speedy deletes... this does not qualify. Please reopen the debate. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of SmileyEdit

Just so you know, this template has been in use for quite some time as an effective communication tool. Just because a previous incarnation of it was deleted doesn't mean nothing has changed since then. The attitude you and the others demonstrated by deleting this template has a direct effect on diminishing the quality of the encyclopedia, as far as I'm concerned, if only because I will be spending far less energy serving this project by upgrading who knows how many portals to featured status (e.g., Cats, Chemistry, Dogs, Education, Philosophy of science, Psychology & Science). Thanks for screwing up one of the few enjoyments I got out of this place. Rfrisbietalk 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will at least agree with the first part of Rfrisbie's comments. I don't think that "Speedy Delete - recreated content" should apply after over a year since the last TfD. consensus can change after all. If anyone else is interested, I think that this is a prime cantidate for WP:DRV, for these reasons alone. (Noting also that the TfD discussion looked an awful lot like a "No consensus" result discussion.) - jc37 10:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Polling etc.Edit

That page should be labeled (at best) an essay anyway, because it does not have consensus to be a guideline. My edit (which has been made in various forms before, and always reverted) was intended as a compromise, so that I could at least live with the page. (Which does not change the fact that, due to other peoples' objections, it does not have consensus to be a guideline.) Since my suggestion quickly rejected out of hand, I decided to restore the tag that the page should really have in the first place. Frankly I find this whole thing laughable, because it shows that many decisions on Wikipedia are not really made by consensus at all, but rather rather by bullying. 6SJ7 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about what is appropriate or inappropriate. 6SJ7 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not UPN related, but still worth telling youEdit

I have adopted a member, named Zoidy-Poo, who is a friend of mine outside Wikipedia. But I can't do this alone. Could you co-adopt him to help me? Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hidden vandalismEdit

On the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of page, it shows my name on it, and the category is on my userpage. Can you find out what's causing it and remove it? --AAA! (AAAA) 08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't vandalism! Thanks for that. I always forget those colons in categories, but I easily remember them with images. Weird... --AAA! (AAAA) 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


No need to continue conversation. We are not getting anywhere. Point is, he thinks blocks should be handed out as warnings in a punitive way. If this had been the first incident, it would not have been a big deal. But I have noticed wrongful conduct and illicit blocking since Aksi great's block back in May 2006. Best thing would be to drop it and let ArbCom do their deed. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PhilwelchEdit


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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock againEdit

contributions --AAA! (AAAA) 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another [2]Edit

contributions - I can tell because he uploaded fake UPN images. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What becomes of our handiwork?Edit

Hmm... it seems that discussion on the protection of titles has died down on Village pump. Some sysops are now using it, some sticking to {{deletedpage}}. Should we TfD {{deletedpage}} to bump everything over to a common system? :o) Flyingtoaster1337 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}} is a simpler, quicker way for the protecting admin. It would be better to have a bot that converts the pages. —Centrxtalk • 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another [3]Edit

contributions --AAA! (AAAA) 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And I think UPN will need semi-protection again. --AAA! (AAAA) 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He has vandalized a page again. Look up Baked Beans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Tregoweth1 vs. Tregoweth25Edit

Is it wrong that I want to unblock Tregoweth25 just so I can block him myself? :) —tregoweth (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


You blocked this guy for 24 hours. I'm curious as to why he wasn't blocked indef as a vandal-only account. — Werdna talk 05:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Why did you delete the page Wikilobbying? It will not let me recreate it. I know that I can create an unbiased version of that page which will be written in Wikipedia-style. Please let me create it. There is no point of deleting factual articles. The more articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's weird; I'd just left a message here, and then found myself back within minutes about another issue. I came across the redirect Wikilobbying. While it clearly shouldn't be an article, I couldn't see why it should exist even as a redirect, so I nominated it at RfD. Then I went back and looked at the history to see whom I should contact, and found you, and this section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick QEdit

Hey, been looking at a certain arbcom case and am trying to make sure it doesn't blow up into yet another ED fiasco - that'll only end up as trouble for me. May I ask what comment of Thatcher's prompted this? Thanks, Milto LOL pia 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Do arbitration clerks normally comment on the case and point fingers to "trolling" based on evidence? I am gracefully unfamiliar with the system. Milto LOL pia 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another UPN sockEdit

contributions. Also,'s block has now expired. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


My experience has been that any editing of an archive of this sort is severely frowned upon (to say the least). The first and only time that I did it (as here, simply for formatting purposes) I was reverted and then blocked. I was immediately unblocked by another admin, who saw that the block was an overreaction, but I was still warned that closed RfAs, etc., shouldn't be touched.

One reason is that they're records of exactly what happened, not what someone thinks should have happened. In this case, for example, if at any stage someone checked the archive, they might find that the count had been misleading because the misformatting had upset the numbering; they can't see that if someone's carefully tidied up the mess after the fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, your Sherlock Holmes act is impressive. I'd forgotten who was involved, and had obviously misremembered the incident slightly; I'd thought that I was in the wrong, and that the block was an overreaction. OK, then I withdraw my objections and apologise for getting things wrong (my guilt for which is balanced by the discovery that my past isn't as shady as I'd thought). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Editing RFA after closure used to be a bigger deal. These days, I think one of the main reasons to want to edit formatting of a request for adminship even after closure is to help out TangoTangos bot? --Kim Bruning 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another sock [4]Edit

contributions --AAA! (AAAA) 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:DeletedpageEdit

Template:Deletedpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of 10%, eh?Edit

(replying to message on my talk page) - Interesting that you got a reduction of 10% with pngout, even after the PNG crusade bot sent it through optipng and advpng. I'll have to look into this stunning discovery - an additional reduction of 10% sounds really good. Thanks! —Remember the dot (t) 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

{{protected title}} snafuEdit

The {{protected title}} template chokes on User talk:Ans/Forum/w/index.php/w/index.php?title=User talk:Ans/Forum/w/index.php/w/index.php and User talk:Ans/Forum/w/w/index.php/w/index.php?title=User talk:Ans/Forum/w/w/index.php/w/index.php - two of the more nonsensical titles that were created in a spambot blitzkrieg yesterday. Passing these names ends up transcluding User talk:Image (and a broken activity log link). I guess it's the "index.php?title=User" part common to both names that's snarling up the parsefunctions. I thought of fixing it myself but the code's now a bit complicated for me to look at. :-( Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it - I forgot about the "prefix unnamed parameters with 1=" trick, which solved it. D'oh! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Hola :) I came to your page due to your blanking of the practical joke in my talk. I guess you were correct about that one, I had no idea it was considered undesirable by the userpage guideline. (I would have liked if you had left a note about it though). Anyways, just to tell you the external link to the Polaners webpage in the userpage about you doesn't work anymore. Rosa 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


I feel a little ridiculous warning you about 3RR vio, David, but are you aware that you've gone right up against the limit on Certified.gangsta's userpage? Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I second this request, as I recall that my first ever block was performed by none other than David Levy after I had reverted vandalism by User:Bonaparte (now permabanned). I still await apologies for that incident, by the way. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abusing your adminship?Edit

You defended an accusation of abusing your admin powers by stating that you unblocked a user when they agreed to set their user page to match your perspective on an edit war on it. While your other statements were valid, that particular course of action was totally inappropriate, especially considering you were warring over an undecided policy. In the future please try not to use your sysop abilities in disputes you personally are engaged in. i kan reed 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. With that statement, I was not addressing the block's appropriateness. I was addressing the user's claim that my intention was to stop him from participating in a discussion. Again, I perceived (and continue to perceive) this incident as the reversion of disruptive guideline violations, not as a "content dispute." I would never block an editor with whom I believed I was involved in a content dispute. —David Levy 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rethink?Edit

I have to say I'm surprised that you just came out of Werdna's RFA complaining (and justifiably so) that Philwelch was reverting a disagreement with rollback and treating you, a good-faith contributor, as a common vandal, and now you're calling your activity vandalism reversion? Not that I necessarily have a stance on the policy change, but I would've thought your own experiences with assumption of bad faith would keep you from calling edits made by diligent contributors by such terms. Milto LOL pia 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The two situations are dramatically different.
During Werdna's RfA, I was one of several users engaged in a good-faith discussion that clearly resulted in no consensus (let alone a guideline change).
In this instance, a discussion resulted in clear consensus (and a guideline change). In my assessment, the deliberate violation of this guideline (after repeatedly being warned not to) and the removal of a warning to follow a guideline were disruptive and constituted vandalism (or something tantamount to vandalism). If I'm wrong about this, it was an honest mistake on my part. (For the record, I've never accused Phil of acting in bad faith during the Werdna incident.) —David Levy 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoax message boxesEdit

I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia,"

This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).

Tyrenius 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, fortunately I was able to inform that user of the lack of consensus about the guideline (and I notice you quoted the guideline as if it was policy, when he asked specifically if there was a policy against the message bar). Jeffpw 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The word policy is also used as general reference to wiki procedures and process, as well as a distinct one to differentiate from guideline. Guidelines are usual good practice and should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Here is the user's explanation:
I don´t want to remove it... It´s Fun! I know it can get annoying sometimes, so if you don´t like it, then never visit my userpage nor any of my subpages
I suggest this is not the most helpful way towards collegiality. I suggest that those who are making so much fuss over keeping their practical jokes would be better off forgetting about them and getting on instead with editing an encyclopedia; and being more considerate to users who do find such things annoying, and at whose expense they are having their fun. Please also see WP:LAWYER while you're about it.
Tyrenius 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted. Please note my concern that you deliberately misled the user into thinking he was in violation of policy. In the great scheme of things, that seems a larger transgression than a silly joke message bar. Jeffpw 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time on wiki. This certainly isn't. Tyrenius 09:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That reply was a non sequiter if ever there was one. Jeffpw 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey, been a few months. How goes it? Good here. It just occured to me that a variant (or variants) of the 3-color version of logo for Wikiversity with a gold shade for the columns (more toned down than the 'O' version) might be very interesting. And, I think the project needs a variant where the crossbars are not so bright a shade of bluegreen, though I'm not sure what shade to use. Do you have any time to work up variant(s)? If not, I can float it in the Wikiversity colloquim. Feel free to answer on the meta logo page, WV or here. I'll check in a bit. Take 'er easy, --Reswik 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for youEdit

Hi Daid levy, I want to know something. Is the straw poll on the "new messages" banner still active? I think it was at the Village Pump. I would really like to give my opinion on it. Thanks.--CJ King 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

sock sockEdit

contributions --AAA! (AAAA) 05:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And I also came across this one. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User PageEdit

Sorry, could you tell me what was wrong with this? Electriceel [Talk] 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool CucumberEdit

I, Chrislk02, award you this cool cucumber for maintaining your cool in difficult debate situations. This ability exemplifies a model wikipedian

-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if you could check out a suggestion of mine? At Template talk:Wikipedialang#Cut-off point change, thanks :) Jack · talk · 22:04, Thursday, 15 February 2007

  • Thanks for making your changes, although I still think my layout is better. You don't think it's easier to read this way? I like the repetition of the numbers, seems (almost) like a geometric progression, and while this new cut-off point only currently excludes 3 Wikipedias, that'll be set to change, and we need to keep bumping it up or the list will continue to grow and bloat. I think it just seems unfair that Nynorsk and Norsk are in the same category, when the latter is 5 times the size of the former. Could we perhaps gain more of a consensus? Thanks, Jack · talk · 05:15, Friday, 16 February 2007
  • There don't seem to be any objections :) would you do the honours? Jack · talk · 12:13, Friday, 16 February 2007
  • Ok, its been a few days now and no-one has come up with any major objection (IMO). Now can you introduce my changes? They always could be reverted, and the implementation seems the best way to notify any strongly opinionated editors who missed the discussion - Jack · talk · 15:33, Sunday, 18 February 2007
  • The last part of your comment actually made me laugh out loud. News headline: "Wikipedia does its part in the war against terrorism!" Yes, I very much don't want to get into another argument about who the real terrorists are... I think your idea is wonderful, I fully support - Jack · talk · 17:31, Sunday, 18 February 2007
  • Heh, you're good at this. I just noticed the size of the Arabic, and was about to inform you, but you beat me to it! *Only* by three days... :P thanks for all your help! Jack · talk · 11:42, Sunday, 25 February 2007

Sudden change!Edit

Woah! Are we happy about this?!Jack · talk · 00:38, Wednesday, 11 April 2007

Hoax boxes, Jimbo and ArbcomEdit

Is this something we should take to Arbcom? Tyrenius 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to that, and asking if it should be formally presented to Arbcom for consideration? It seems perhaps not. Tyrenius 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. It's not something I've been involved in before. Tyrenius 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My user pageEdit

Please do not touch my user page. Any edit to my user page is not a useful edit. Kingjeff 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A little comment like my previous one certainly isn't a major edit. Kingjeff 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's a major edit and I still think it's a minor edit. There is no need to argue over something so little. Kingjeff 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How many messages like this are we up to now David? I know that User:Dragons flight had at least two... I think I see two here. (Netscott) 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued removalsEdit

David, would you kindly counsel user Dragons flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to at least leave messages for the "abandoned" users and allow them some time to possibly remove the "message" box. What he's doing currently doesn't strike me as falling within the scope of the "cease fire" that admin Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) helped us arrive at. Thanks. (Netscott) 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


  Peace dove
I present one of these (my first) to you as well. I appreciate the fact that we were patient enough and civil enough despite our somewhat significant differences of opinion about this to be able come to some resolution. I look forward to working on the project in the spirit of cooperation with you as well. Sincerely. (Netscott) 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal towards a "new message" joke box guidelineEdit

Hello David, I'd like to try and help formulate a guideline about discouraging (rather than outright banning) the usage of the "new message" practical joke code. I've been doing some more research on this and gaining a better perspective about the banner thing. One of the first things that needs to be absolutely mandated in no uncertain terms is that if a user is going to use a joke banner despite the guideline's discouragement then it cannot link to anything off Wikimedia servers. Along with that mandate the joke banners can't link to "shock pages" etc. I agree that there are some very valid concerns about the potential for the boxes being abused and in view of that I also agree that regardless of consensus for the existence of them on user pages there are common sense ground rules that should be in effect. What do you think? (Netscott) 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand that you hold that view but in the meantime (until we get word from Jimbo or the ArbCom) I believe that something should be in place. I am concerned now about banners linking to offwiki sites. (Netscott) 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
David, I've initiated the discussion. Please join in! (Netscott) 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You have 1 new messageEdit

Was that an automated response? I appreciate the concern with having the joke there, so I won't put it back up for now, but the passive-aggressiveness of that reply I found inhuman. Thanks. Electriceel [Talk] 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The content wasn't passive-aggressive, it was detailed and thorough, but I wasn't addressed in anyway, nor were there any human conversational conventions employed. It felt like there should be a "this is an automated response, please don't reply" at the end.
But after all that, I was probably just knee jerking. I tend to answer things too hastily, and it's really nothing to argue about. Thanks Electriceel [Talk] 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
That's ok. I'm not offended, and if I was, come on! This is the internet! Keep doing your good, and I'll try not to break any more rules. Electriceel [Talk] 10:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


I have found a solution on deciding who the main puppeteer is. See here. --AAA! (AAAA) 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

another [?]Edit

contributions. Also created a user subpage that you should delete. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

UPN VandalEdit

Hi, I believe that I have found 3 new socks of The UPN Vandal: User: (added SM soundtrack to 2007 in music page), User:Milhouse 343 and user: I'm not sure how to get strongly suspected socks banned quickly, I tried AIV and AN, but nothing was quickly done in either instance. -- Scorpion 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My addition to WP:PTEdit

Whoops, didn't see it there. Sorry about that. --Coredesat 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration templates on article rather than talk pagesEdit

(At last someone else who uses their own name....)

G'day David, I noted the shifting of the current collab template. I currently organize both the dinosaur and fungi collaborations and to date the collab has always been on the article page. Is there are rule on this somewhere? Was about to revert back but thought i'd check first. cheers Cas Liber 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, cool, OK Cas Liber 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UPN is backEdit

After a couple days off, The UPN Vandal is back under an old IP that you've had conflits with before: user: There's also an account: User:DelarionDavis28 and two other IPs: user: and user: -- Scorpion 20:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Superseded pagesEdit

Hi David. You seem to be pretty involved with the system of templates that outdated Wikipedia space pages are tagged with, so I'd like you opinion on my idea for a new one: template:superseded. {{superseded}} would be used on replaced-but-not-rejected pages like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research after their replacement by Wikipedia:Attribution; Wikipedia:Attribution, meanwhile, could have a similar template along the lines of "this page has superseded X, Y, and Z." Good idea? Bad idea? Redundant to something else? Cheers, Picaroon 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, they are currently using handmade, non-transcluded ones. Picaroon 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protected title now in use on commonsEdit

but Nilfanion and I may not know quite what all the parserfunctions do, especially the ones that relate to dealing with images that are on commons or not. Can you take a look and see if we did it right? Commons:Template:Protected title which is used at Commons:Commons:Protected against recreation... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(copied from commons talk) Hello! I excised the Commons image code (which isn't needed at this wiki) and saved the remainder here for you to copy. Other than that, everything seems to check out.  :-) —David Levy 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Other than a stray missing space around the . around the activity log, I changed nothing. Is your user version OK to delete now? Your help is MUCH appreciated! ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, and thanks again for your help! ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I've just been tagging a whole string of sockpuppets that have been engaging in an edit war on your userpage. Just to inform you. Retiono Virginian 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi David, I'd normally agree with you, but in this case, people have been using WP:ATT for four months, and I see they're still using it, whereas very few are using the others, so it would seem odd not to include the one that's currently most popular. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons AdminshipEdit

commons:Special:Contributions/David_Levy is very solid. You should be an admin there, in my view, if you have an interest. Do you? I'd be honored to nominate you if you were so inclined... just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm So SorryEdit

Hey, I Was Wondering If I Could Say If You Do Believe Me, But I Just Wanna Say I'm Sorry, But You Can Believe Me, And Let Me Know Okay. -Jay-G7 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PhilwelchEdit

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair useEdit

There are about 50 such images uploaded per day, and a backlog of thousands. Red links, rather than bringing the whole project to its knees, just get deleted by other editors once noticed. ed g2stalk 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the process is very time consuming. If these redlinks are such a great problem (I personally see the copyright violations as a more pressing concern), then one could easily have a bot crawl the deletion logs, however this is beyond my technical expertise. ed g2stalk 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


If you add

img[src*="/ad/"] { border: solid red 10px !important; }

to your CSS file (and use a recent Firefox or IE browser) it will add a bright red border around any image in the /ad/ directory. I find this very helpful in recognizing the 0.4% of images that have this problem. (PS. It was not originally my idea, but I don't recall who told me about it.) Dragons flight 10:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A little task for youEdit

Another UPN sock, contributions, has created a few pages which I've marked for Speedy deletion. These were created on the 6th of March. Hoping if you could delete them. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you transfer the salted page "Greene County Cable Television" to "Wikipedia:Protected titles" (aswell as its talk page)? --AAA! (AAAA) 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Something got messed up when I did the upload; I haven't done main page maintenance for ages. Its nice to see we have a commons admin working on the en main page now. Thanks for fixing it up. --Peta 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read...Edit

No, I didn't, because I was unaware of that. Perhaps the template's talk page should explain it? >Radiant< 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No offense taken. I appear to have missed that discussion, when I had been off-wiki for a few days. Cheers! >Radiant< 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way - do you think we'd need a "guideline shortcut" tag as well? I can't off-hand recall any guidelines with section redirects, but there's probably one or two. And there's WP:AADD which gets cited a lot... >Radiant< 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hey, David. I sent you a couple of emails about a week ago, but I haven't heard a reply from them. I was wondering if you got them or not. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more chores for youEdit

Another blocked sockpuppet, contributions, has created a few pages that I've speedied, but no-one's deleted them yet. I'd ask Tregoweth to do it, but I usually just nag him to block the accounts, and I thought I'd give him a break. :P --AAA! (AAAA) 06:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey, David. I've sent you an email with some information on you-know-who. You might want to read it. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I've missed him making an Official Statement on it so far. At any rate I think that naming all three pages policy is just about the worst possible way to resolve this. We'll get divergence and confusion, "no, it's not verifiable, but it is attributable", things like that. >Radiant< 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay. You know, I'm going to unwatchlist this entire mess and check back in a month or so to see if it has become less obfuscated in the meantime. Which somehow I doubt. >Radiant< 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, for the fix. Jeepday 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[moving discussion over from WP:ATT talk, where it's getting increasingly off-topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)]

  1. Yes, it says that the designation as a guideline/policy is disputed. That means that someone has designated the page a policy/guideline and someone else believes that it isn't one. It does not mean that someone believes that the designation should be changed. If your overly broad interpretation were correct, nearly every policy/guideline page would bear this tag at all times.
  2. The template was TfD'd by a user who shared your misunderstanding. I suggest that you read the discussion.
  3. Yes, if someone slaps a policy/guideline tag on a page that obviously isn't a policy/guideline, it will simply be removed. This tag is for use in a reasonable disagreement as to a page's status (e.g. some editors believe that consensus was reached, but others don't).
  4. No, I'm not claiming that I possess any special authority. I'm pointing out that you're telling me what I meant when I wrote something.
  5. Where on the talk page is your view supported? If your comments from January were intended to mean something along the lines of your current claims, that wasn't clear.

David Levy 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I really get the feeling we are talking past eachother on some small but important point, for us to be disagreeing this strongly.
  1. Right. Proponents of WP:ATT designated it a policy, and a bunch of people disagree with that. Jimbo has temporarily agreed that it should remain labelled a policy (which is not the same thing as him agreeing it accurately represents actual policy, which he beyond-clearly doesn't; see my long post on this topic at the poll talk page; I think the edit summary was something like "How about an alternative to Jossi's interpretation of Jimbo"). It must be labelled a policy for Disputedtag to even apply in the first place; if Jimbo had changed it to Rejected or Proposal or Historical during the pre-poll and poll period, changing it to Disputedtag would be an error. I think your argument is that "because it came from Jimbo" this means that Disputedtag cannot apply, but I question that sort of reasoning as a highly personal interpretation that has equally plausible but conflicting interpretations (e.g. mine, at the poll talk page). Even if Jimbo stopped by and said your interpretation of him is correct, I would argue that Disputedtag still applies because there is widespread dispute about whether ATT bearing a policy designation reflects consensus, and Jimbo's already determined that he is leaving the matter up to the community; i.e., Disputedtag doesn't contradict Jimbo in this case either (all disputed tag does is alert that there is a dispute; it doesn't change the policy designation). And even if I'm somehow misguided in that analysis, Disputedtag emphatically is applicable the very instant that the poll becomes active, since Big J has said this is how consensus will be determined - that is, the dispute is active in every possible sense at that point. As to the ad absurdum point: The consensus view, such as it is, both at the template and at its TfD is that if the template is used in such a "every policy and guideline, all the time" manner it would be being misused; as you say yourself further down it is for "use in a reasonable disagreement", and as said elsewhere, for use with substantial, numerous-party disputes, not lone crankism (I think virtually every commentator at the template's talk page agreed that was the same sort of abuse as happens with article dispute tags all the time).
  2. By "TfD'd" I meant "successfully TfD'd" (otherwise what I said wouldn't mean anything, since anyone can XfD anything at any time, even for insane or bad faith reasons). I've read that failed TfD at least twice, and do not in fact agree with the TfD nominator's views, so you're not understanding my position. NB: I believe that Radiant attacked the template because he was over-controlling WP:N while it was subject to numerous disputes including whether it had consensus at all on any of it (notably, no pun intended, he was the one that designated it a guideline, too), and I and some others defended its bearing a Disputedpolicy template for about two months until the mess was corrected. While I don't think it was a bad faith TfD, I do think his take on the template was heavily skewed and didn't represent what others were thinking about it at all.
  3. The legitimate use of the tag you describe is precisely the situation at WP:ATT, other than Jimbo's confused things slightly, and temporarily, but some of us believe we see through that fog pretty clearly.
  4. I'm not telling you what you meant. The template is not yours, WP is not a YOYOW environment like The WELL, and you do not edit in a vacuum. Other parties already had an understanding of what that template was for, understanding of what it is for has evolved since your wording edit, and your wording suits the current general understanding; that it may also suit some other slightly different understanding that you have is unfortunate but doesn't change others' minds or change the overall nature of the template and how Wikipedians use it. After reading everything you wrote at template talk and at the TfD, several things you did say appear to support my view of the template's uses/purpose (which I think is closer to yours than you seem to think it is), and nothing you said appears to contradict it, so I find what you are saying now jarring (and as I pointed out, I think that at least what I've been interpreting you as saying differently from me today would render the template completely useless, which to me suggests again that we are simply misunderstanding each other, because I tend to actually agree with you all over WP on a large number of things.)
  5. Where I wrote a big explanation of some legit uses for it in response to Radiant being silly; this was followed by nothing but agreement that the template had legit uses (I don't recall that anyone said "yes, every word of what SMcCandlish wrote is correct", but no one disagreed with a single word of it either.) I would actually rewrite it now, given the chance, because I think it was too vague and actually did go a little beyond conventional understanding of the uses of the template to include disputes with the policy's detailia. I believe what I meant at the time was that if the wording is fundamentally screwed up in a way that makes it clearly, as a whole, not actually reflect what policy really is..., but I muddled it.
Hopefully we are at least slightly clearer to a joint understanding; I'll be disappointed if this only results in further argument on every single point. (PS: I've watchlisted the page so you needn't reply at my place.)
SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for going to the trouble of typing this thoughtful reply! Indeed, I believe that we've been misunderstanding each other, and I apologize for my role in this. I'm not certain that we fully agree on the tag's precise purpose, but it's clear that we don't disagree to nearly the extent that it previously seemed (and your Jimbo argument is compelling).
One concern that I neglected to express earlier is that the inclusion of the stock {{disputedtag}} template might mislead people to believe that a dispute exists regarding one or more of the basic concepts documented on the page (rather than the merger that placed them there). Would a custom tag explaining the specific situation not be more appropriate? —David Levy 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm very glad you said that! I thought I was goin' nuckin' futs or something. No apology needed; confusions like this happen all the time, and I don't feel you've done anything bad faith to keep me from getting my Righteous way with the template at ATT, or any such hooey. I hadn't thought of the concern at all that you just raised, about fallout effect on V, NOR and RS. That's a very good point. I'd completely missed it. And yes, I think a custom Disputedmerge or something would work well (and be useful later; I saw at {{Cent}} at least two other proposed policy/guideline merges that could conceivably raise similar issues). After some of the freakout over at poll talk dies down, I'd like to actually hammer out where we do differ on interpretation; I think it would be a really Good Thing to provide documentation at the top of the template talk page (or even transcluded on the template page) to forestall some of its misuses.  :-) Oh, and I corrected a dumb typo in my earlier post, in bold, which may have rendered what I was saying there meaningless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Attribution, I've suggested a possible tag. Feel free to improve the wording  :-) —David Levy 08:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I looked at the discussion, didn't agree with most of it, and took into account who was making it as well, and for what purpose. The poll needs to see who agrees with the move in principle first. Claiming that that question is in some way "vague" only serves to discredit the person who says it, not the question itself. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But you (Jayjg) and Sv coming along and making radical changes without regard for previous consensus-building isn't very helpful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 06:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
David, I say what I mean. Please don't put words in my mouth. As for you, SMcCandlish, there was no consensus to remove that question. Jayjg (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Defining horribleEdit

I smoked a cigarette waiting on last, and think I'll be off to bed. I am curious—one, two, or three questions aside—why anyone who has been on Wiki a while wants to increase our workload. Perhaps you'd understand my word choices if you'd worked on WP:ATT for six months rather than six days. The intention was never to introduce duplicate policy description—it was to reduce it. I'd guess that if the people who worked on ATT in earnest could choose between keeping it as a fourth page (policy, guideline, "supplement" or whatever) or killing it, they'd simply kill it. It would be far far better to my mind, despite having worked on it, to have ATT disappear, than to have ATT and V live at the same time. The possibility that a large project meant to streamline P&Gs could be used to make them more hard to manage is mind-numbing. Note, I'm not talking about the poll now; I'm describing the intention behind Attribtution that developed over many months. I call the "compromise" of running four live pages a horrible idea, because it completely inverts everything Wikipedia:Attribution was made to accomplish. It's not a compromise option; not in the slightest. Marskell 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Help pleaseEdit

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good faithEdit

Maybe you're doing this in good faith, David, but at some point it crosses a line. WP:ATT was conceived of as a way of reducing 3 pages to 1. It became policy after many months of discussion. Then Jimbo raised concerns, and said he would like to gauge Wikipedia opinion as to whether the 3 pages should have been merged or not. Now you say you want other options, completely unrelated to that (and, in fact diametrically opposed to that), otherwise Wikipedians aren't being "given a choice". Whether you realize it or not, whether in good faith or not, you've crossed over the line from honest discussion to disruption. Step back a little, please, and think about this. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...Edit

... that I am very upset about your email to Jimbo. (a) Puts down the work of a dozen editors that have worked at that page for seven days; (b) Says that we cannot reach consensus, when we have not completed the work; (c) Polarizes the issue even more; (d) Demonstrates a lack of respect for your fellow editors that worked alongside you; (e) removes yourself from the shared responsibility over that work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am a strong believer of "shared responsibility", you and I and a dozen other editors worked on that page, editwarred at times and were stronheaded about our opinions. Add to it that we had some trolling as well, and that makes for a messy debate. So, we are all responsible for the mess and the lack of consensus, no one is exempted, and as such we should clean it up. I am sure we can, if we just listen more to others and be less inflexible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD closeEdit

David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We aren't going to delete the poll pages. That isn't how things work. I know that you mean well, but you're creating a needless distraction from the real matter at hand.
I'm biased against the poll, so there's nothing wrong with me applying common sense in deciding to keep it. —David Levy 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
David... the matter at hand is that there is overwhelming desire from the most people (including our founder) to run the poll. The same admins saying over and over again "NO POLL NO POLL NO POLL" is meaningless--please don't take this the wrong way. Admins have no more value/voice in policy than every one else on this one. If there is support to kill Jimbo's idea, lets be done with it. Letting the MfD run a day at least won't hurt anything. - Denny 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And someone else closed it. I will not fight it, but unless there is overwhelming concensus to not run the poll, I will push for it with others. Every voice should have equal value here... :( - Denny 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? That was an April Fool's Day joke. a proposed user
Oh, you're no fun. :-) Anyway, thanks for noticing me. Cheers! --Uncle Ed 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Bah :P Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 10:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Jimbo's Page?Edit

You protected Jimbo's page! The entire #wikipedia IRC was just having fun with it. I hardly think an april fool's day has gone by that this hadn't happend! Perhaps things got carried away, but I think removing at least full protection in a few minutes after things have cooled down seems fairly reasonable. Ninja! 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting/Protecting Jimbo Wales' pageEdit

1. Why did you revert the "vandalism"? It's a harmless April Fools' joke!

2. Read the quote on Jimbo's page:

You may edit this page

Really, you can! Please feel free!

This is my user page. I like to keep it a certain way. But, the thing is, I trust you. I trust that you'll add something here that makes me smile, that informs me, or that helps to inform others. If I have things in a certain format, I trust that you will respect that format. Actually, scratch that. Since this page is just so simple and plain, my ultimate dream is that some person who thinks it is fun will come along and make it look perfect. See that link up there 'edit this page'? Go for it. It's a wiki world! – Jimbo

3. If you are going to revert and protect, at least get rid of Captain Jimbo Wales xD

--Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How? --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think you should unprotect it. If Jimbo says that anyones can edit his page, let it be. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo said:

I trust that you'll add something here that makes me smile, that informs me, or that helps to inform others.

What they were doing wasn't as much vandalism as it was fun, and I think that Jimbo would appreciate that. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, the giant image of a mop was not a user. That was Deskana, an administrator. Shes hangin out in the IRC with us.

Second, if youre in the mood to revert vandalism, could you restore and unprotect my userpage? Deskana vandalized it and protected it. Ninja! 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me we are seeing different things. When I hear vandalism, I think of hurting ARTICLES. When I think of having a good sense of humor, I think of maybe putting an eyepatch on someone's picture, or maybe putting the same eyepatch on someone's userpage and protecting it to get them back. If you don't want to be a part of this harmless fun, by all means, don't participate, but please don't spoil it for the rest of us!

The moment someone starts vandalizing mainspace articles, please do protect. But don't get in the way of harmless fun! Ninja! 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to lighten up a bit, David :-) --Deskana (ya rly) 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right to have stopped the vandalism. Like I said, it was getting out of control. Nobody wants to deal with a massive backlog the next day. But things have calmed down sufficiently that you can unprotect the page. If someone sees a pirate Jimbo with a note that says "Happy april fool's day", all that will do is portray Jimbo as a happy, cheery individual- something his userpage already does. I would hope that you, too, could show some of this happy, cheery spirit. Ninja! 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Community PortalEdit

Sorry about the misinterpretation. I took mainspace as main page. I totally agree with the original posting! Again, sorry about that! (And once again, I do not condone vandalism!) Jaredtalk  03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said above, I sort of feel like a jerk because I was just trying to do what I thought everyone else wanted, but I was totally off! Anyway, now that this is settled, I never want to talk to you again. :( Jaredtalk  03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Well-meaning userEdit

I thought there was no harm in allowing the joke to go through; it's the April Fool's day, after all. - Mike Rosoft 10:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A QuestionEdit

I was wondering, I wasn't watching Wikipedia's main page on Christmas or Halloween, so I don't even know if this is possible.I have an idea regarding April Fool's 2008, but I was wondering if I would gmail the convo about it. Arcayne 13:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Er. I don'tsee a link to yupr WikiMail. Being a bit new, forgive me for asking if there is some place that i should be looking for this? Arcayne 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of User:Jimbo WalesEdit

Wouldn't semi-protection be a more feasible option? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steptrip (talkcontribs) 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Not when established users (and even sysops) are vandalising a page. —David Levy 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, I didn't see that in the history.  ~Steptrip 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi David,

Could I please request edit rights to the Scotch College Melbourne wiki site. Our Archivist would like to correct some errors.

Thank you,

Luke Turner Scotch College Melbourne Computer Centre 61 3 9810 4370

Something in the water...Edit

Yeah, I saw your predicament on the day too. I was just so amazed by the irrationality of many seemingly good contributors. Until next year ;-)--cj | talk 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protectionEdit

You seem to misunderstand cascading protection. It applies also to existing transcluded pages, see e.g. [5].--Patrick 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the {{protected title}} template. Again, it does not transclude existent pages. —David Levy 12:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(Was sorted out, see User_talk:Patrick#Cascading_protection// 09:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Today's featured article template protectionEdit

Hello! The {{protected title}} template isn't intended to protect existent pages, and the coding bug that allowed this has now been eliminated.
I created {{TFA template}} specifically for this purpose and implemented it on your pages. I also moved them to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/A and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/B and relocated the links from WP:PT to WT:TFA. —David Levy 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; thanks for the update. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw menEdit

Hi; I'm just monitoring the fricasse from here on in, as the headache I had after leaving the house today was too much to bother with further; I'm tired of playing sisyphus when there's urchins kicking rocks at me, and the volume of historical articles that would have been generated if I hadn't been "waging truth" these last two weeks is profound, and somewhat tragic as my life will be allowing me only so many more days/weeks on Wikipedia (see {{BCproject}} and {{NorthAmNative}} which are my two most active undertakings). But I saw Uncle G's usage of "straw man arguments" or whatever his phrasing was....and your refutation of this complete misapplication of that, I'll tell you what, both he and Hong tried using it on Talk:Chinaman, claiming all mine's and zeus1234's and keefer4's positions were "straw man arguments" or "straw men [that we were] bringing forward". And we explained, or I did anyway, that while they both state that they are native English speakers, they clearly don't have a grasp on English idioms (I quite honestly think that's the case, given so many other similar examples, despite their good written literacy); or they're just miseducated, or arrogant, or pulling out any cheap accusation they can against anybody who dares dispute them. Sandbox behaviour, and this page should have been confined IMO to a sandbox, period (note my just-now removal of a completely a-factual claim/editorialization, of the very kind he claims he's not making...). Anyway, I'm gonna go over to Talk:Chinaman and find the "straw man" comments and I'll be back with "clips".....and I'm half-certain it wasn't Uncle G who used this term, but the IP address user 4.x.x...........whatever the case, the other comments of this nonsensical metaphor/archetype or whatever "straw man" is lexically might make for an interesting comparison to his bringing it up again. If it was him, that is; but as before a lot of 4.x.x's language sounds "just like". And if this is one of those "exactly like" that checkuser/sock issue comes up again; I had a look through checkuser rules and don't see where any of this fits; other than various things said by 4.x.x. that were completely out-of-line (way more than anything even I and Hong have hurled at each other). Other than that I'm going to try and focus on real-world topics, not fighting over somebody's neo-racist castle in the sand....Skookum1 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it was Uncle G who kept on harping about "straw men", not 4.x.x. But while searching for that I noticed Uncle G's first round of meddling on the talkpage, in which he kept on, over and over, insisting, without saying much else: " I also suggest reading page 137 of ISBN 1883378834 " so that we'd apparently become as enlightened as him; it's a minor and "pop" dictionary of English slang with a one-sentence/phrase definition, and he was adamant that it be considered an authoritative source, above all others cited, which were "straw men" and "irrelevant" and worse. Failing that, and as you know failing his merge plans there, he launched you-know-what. I've just took the hedgetrimmers there to things he's said that are not just editorializations but in some cases OUTRIGHT LIES and totally uncitable, despite his claims that everything is cited. And I also added certain items that were glaringly absent, as well as his attempt to POV/editorialize what "camp" Frank Chin was in; that Bo Yang, Fresh Kid Ice, Mark Birkett and Tommy Chong's disastrous band name "Four Niggers and a Chink" (nobody had a sense of humour about this kind of stuff in the early '60s...); all major names who have adopted "chinaman" as either a selfidentifier or as an archetype. He doesn't want the world to know about that, but the glaring absence of these materials from English language names for Chinese people totally grinds his false clalims that the page is NPOV into the dust. He'll deny it, denounce me, and tell me I need better manners, then reassert his objectivity and will keep on pointing to his own selection of cites. but not ones he doesn't like, or if he has to he'll editorialize them so they "fit" his vision of what these words are and why they belong in some common page, apparently as a documentation of linguistic racism against Chinese. Well, when the dust settles here I think, especially if this piece of contrived ick survives the AFD, that the Gweilo article should be renamed Chinese language names for non-Chinese peoples, as the article is about a LOT more than the term Gweilo, and covers other pejorative/ethnic terms in Chinese ("this is not a dictionary"). The subtext to either title, unstated but there for those who realize, are really English language racism against Chinese people and Chinese language racism against non-Chinese people. The more the merrier, I suppose; I'm thinking of a Norwegian language names for Swedes and Euzkara names for Spaniards. All in a day's work, and of course if ElnfCp is a valid article, then all the others would be equallyly valid as article topics and ripe for NPOV input.....and are just the kind of thing Wikipedia needs to focus on.... ;-) ;-| Skookum1 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And just as an aside, while looking around for Birkett's webpages/resources in order to write his article, I came across these guys on YouTube - "The Chinaman and a Greek". Not sure yet if they're notable - they may be - but they are damned funny and talented lipsynchers....if that's lipsynching...Skookum1 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC) And Mark Birkett is even funnier, also on YouTube (several clips).Skookum1 06:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titlesEdit

Hi there. Unless you are able to provide a good rationale for keeping it protected, I am going to unprotect this page, as there is no real justification to do so. Look, in example, de:Wikipedia:Gesperrte Lemmata, which is not protected and allows anyone to include interwiki or write clarifications. -- ReyBrujo 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We could protect many pages, like Wikipedia:List of administrators, but we don't. The spirit of Wikipedia is to use protection as a last measure, that vandals may deface the page is not a good one, nor the fact that the page requires few edits per month. However, since you so strongly object, there is nothing I can do. Thanks for the note. -- ReyBrujo 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at MediaWiki:Watchdetails. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I reverted once, discussed the issue on the talk page, and edited the message in an attempt to compromise. SlimVirgin, conversely, reverted three times without any compromise attempt. —David Levy 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread your difs. — xaosflux Talk 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation.  :-) —David Levy 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oola pictureEdit

A stretch at this point is good enough. It won't be like with Ian Thorpe where we had a photograph of the Athens' Olympic Swimming pool, but a dog that sorta looks like the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut's deathEdit

Even though your reading of the rules is correct, I still think his death needs to be mentioned. There was agreement at WP:ITN/C that his death may be significant enough to merit inclusion on the main page. Also, we're starting to get readers questioning Wikipedia's silence on the issue here and here. I think this is a case of WP:IAR, we've got someone who although they didn't die in an unusual or tragic manner, was clearly extremely important... RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpgEdit

I found this on the website of the Virginia State Police: "MEDIA making inquires regarding the Virginia Tech incident should call the Virginia Tech Media Line at (540) 231-5396 or visit their Web site at" Maybe we could ask the VTML and see if they could release us photographs of the shooting, in partiuclar, the shooter. If we can get it directly from the source, then I will stop my persuit about the image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


  The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For re-protecting the Main Page when it somehow got unprotected and was under attack. Fanra 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconded heartily. Great work! And thank you for the award :) – Riana 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping inactive admin accounts (re: Main Page brouhaha on 19 Apr 07)Edit

Hi David,

You mentioned briefly on Talk:Main Page that desysopping inactive admins as a regular practice had been debated and turned down. Could you please direct me to that debate? Cheers, Sentinel75 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much. I also thank you for saving me from a rather embarrassing rant about the crats desyssopping admins :) — Deckiller 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for the star, David. Groogokk 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm not really surprised to hear that. So can we give him a negative barnstar or something? >Radiant< 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! Karrmann 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection bugEdit

[6] Yeah, I noticed that too, and got awful concerned about the unprotected templates before I logged out and tried to edit them as an IP. Should we file a report about this?--Pharos 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, sir. It is an honor for me that you award me a barnstar. --Meno25 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling guidelinesEdit

The idea was to get a blank page to rewrite/refactor polling guidelines from an NPOV+consensus perspective. After about a month we could then look at the generated material and see how and if we could combine it with existing material to get a more accurate representation of current consensus on best practices in this area.

Unfortunately things got a bit heated, and then someone added merge tags, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back, I'm afraid.

So now there's no editing, and not even civil discussion. Page merges are right out. ^^;;

It's a kind of situational irony or catch 22... Placing the merge tag is what caused it to be impossible to gain consensus on merging in the short term. ^^;;;

--Kim Bruning 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I know, I'm as flabbergasted as you are, probably :-P But on a wiki this big, even quite crazy coincidences are likely to happen from time to time.

<scratches head> No idea what other options are open. I'm keeping a copy on my hard drive though, so once the dust has settled maybe we can make a tidy guideline anyway. Just this particular attempt isn't flying. :-/ --Kim Bruning 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not going to work Kim Bruning. Such thinking is just making busy work because if the MfD saw this page deleted then anyone wanting to recreate this type of page would be obliged to go through deletion review first. Such complications are not helpful. (Netscott) 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Only if the page is salted. --Kim Bruning 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Heya, it looks like we're mostly talking past each other on the MFD. Even so, so far I think I can tell that you are probably acting in good faith :) . With a little effort we might also be able to understand each other's position. Note that I don't think people in the overall discussion have had a lack of good faith per-se, but I do think some people might see this as a sort of partisan issue. Hmm, either that, or people are making too many kneejerk responses, and not checking to see if the other party might actually be acting in good faith themselves --Kim Bruning 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we have indeed been talking past each other. --Kim Bruning 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also my comments on the MFD Talk page. --Kim Bruning 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MFD WithdrawnEdit

You convinced me sufficiently with this comment:

"I don't think that anyone has proposed that Wikipedia:Straw polls be merged in its current form. The idea is to slowly analyze its text (along with previous versions), determine which portions are backed by consensus, merge them into Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (along with any additional polling information deemed useful) and leave the rest behind. —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)"

I'm just wondering, if this is the case: Could you not have waited with that proposal until after the Straw polls page settled down? --Kim Bruning 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, you could skip the slow analysis and following. Basically the page has not been maintained for a long time, and I maintain that the best plan is to actually just work on updating that page to current best knowledge and practices. (this was from before you joined the discussion afaict). This would also probably end up "automatically" incorporating text from PNSD. --Kim Bruning 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that merge tags are typically used to indicate that pages should be merged in the very near future (and presumably in their current form). I take it we agree that we should take our time with this? --Kim Bruning 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmph. Well. Do you think we can get Radiant on board on that basis? --Kim Bruning 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

However long it takes. A rushed merger would be the worst possible move. —David Levy 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah see, and that's what I thought people were discussing the whole time (The big merge tags and so definately suggested that that was imminent). Hence the big time foot-dragging.;-) Also originally I thought it was a good idea to work on a separate page, so that if things went south, all we needed to do was delete the page (pre-planned reaction #2). I hadn't quite noticed that this was the particular page that had an older history. Let's Not Risk Deleting That (tm) ;-)
It might be wisest to start a fresh page and then bring details over from all other pages. We can then mark the old pages as deprecated. Would that cover your objectives? --Kim Bruning 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with what you're saying, except I don't believe in the concept of "proposed guidelines". I've never written a "proposed" page before, and I think the number of "proposed guideline"s that got anywhere can be counted on the fingers on one hand :-P. Can we simply be descriptive? Taggers will play their games no matter what we do anyway. --Kim Bruning 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have ever succeeded at this? Generally I find that pages I make that don't get called proposed or whatever do a lot better, over time. O:-) --Kim Bruning 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the standard procedure as written, and I'm also aware that it doesn't actually work. ;-) But there you have it. One day we should fix those pages too. But let's do one thing at a time. --Kim Bruning 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Botaylor456 Sockpuppet?Edit

User Jordan Maxferres seems to be doing the same thing that Bo and his other sockpuppets have done. --Proofreader J-Man 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is another sock puppet account (which I've blocked). Thanks for bringing it to my attention! —David Levy 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt action, and here's another one-- User WLS-TV. This guy is obsessed and apparently unstoppable. --Proofreader J-Man 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a new one-- B49. Think it's another puppet?--Proofreader J-Man 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you have my consent about the Kenny Rogers thing.--Bucs10 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


Hi David,

Main Page: (Reverted edits by David Kernow (talk) to last version by Mets501)

That was fast!  Thanks, with apologies for forgetting to preview. Yours, David (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, think I've now corrected the offending error. Best wishes, David (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage has been vandalizedEdit

Just wanted to warn you. MrMacMan Talk 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help out. :) MrMacMan Talk 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic SlursEdit

Thank you for your comments. I will accept that I am still on a learning curve, and will not in any way argue with you. It is, of course, fair to say that the very fact that the article has been through four deletion debates, which is an unusually high number, indicates that views on the topic are mixed. But I take your point.--Anthony.bradbury 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, of course I know that wiki is not censored and that we do not remove content because it might offend people; I have over the last year or so reverted a number of edits made by other people on this irrelevant basis. It was a judgerment call; if it was wrong, I accept this.--Anthony.bradbury 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Because the conversation seems to be happening on my talk-page, I have answered there.--Anthony.bradbury 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. As you will know, I am still a fairly new admin, and am more than happy to take advice, be it as a result of a misjudgement or not.--Anthony.bradbury 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


David, WikiProject Lutheranism is looking to design a project/topic-related barnstar. Unfortunately, such an endevour is beyond the skills of our editors, so we are looking for a little help. I saw that you were involved in designing another barnstar, and thought that you might be able to help us out. Is this something that you would be willing / able to help out with? Thanks for your consideration. -- Pastor David (Review) 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I would like to, if we can, present a couple of possibilities to the Project for them to decide between. For the first, if it could be some image of Luther's seal placed in the middle of a standard barnstar (images at Image:Lutherrose.jpg, Image:Luthseal.gif, and in the commons at Lutherrose_(small).png -- I think the commons image might be easiest to work with, but you would know better). I think the other good option might be Image:Indulgence.png (also from commons) somehow combined with a standard barnstar. I am certainly open to other options as well, especially since you already have experience in this area and probably have some better ideas. Let me know what you think. Pastor David (Review) 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, those both look great. I have asked the WikiProject which they would rather adopt, and expect to hear something in a couple of days. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Pastor David (Review) 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Great Job Wikipedia! You have helped me alot! I only have one question. How do I make my own Wikipedia page? Miki101 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


How can I make wiki pages for people like, say if some superstar is not on wikipedia, can I create one?

Thanks for the help,

Miki101 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Not sure if you're watching User talk:Ruud Koot, but I'd be interested in getting your feedback about User:Mike Dillon/Sidebar. Mike Dillon 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


In my IE6, the background is transparent. Here is proof; open an image editing program, zoom in on the image, and you will see the background is transparent. - Super48 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stoopid Monkey LogosEdit

As you are aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT) 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I said that I thought that it should be reverted them locked, was I thought admins reverted to it's previous then locked it. That was my mistake...sorry about that. But, I thank you for your opinion. - SVRTVDude (VT) 04:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and sorry about the mass posting, I wanted to get everyone's opinion from the AfD (per an admin's suggestion) and I got lazy after the first writing, so I did the ol' cut and paste. - SVRTVDude (VT) 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting images at CommonsEdit

When you protect images at Commons, they are not automatically protected on Wikipedia if we have a red page on this end. Please put an mprotected tag on such MainPage images to make the local Wikipedia image page blue. Thanks.--Pharos 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Images with filenames that already exist at the Commons cannot be uploaded here by non-sysops. Upon making an attempt, such a user receives this message. This has been true since 2005 (long before the cascading protection feature was added). Otherwise, why would anyone have bothered to protect images at the Commons if they still had to create a Wikipedia page and manually protect it? It would have been easier to simply c-upload the images and protect those.
If you wish to confirm this, log into a non-sysop account and attempt to upload any image that already exists at the Commons (but not here) under the same name.
2. You're also mistaken about the nature of cascading protection. Transcluding a nonexistent page (a "redlink") prevents its creation here (but not at the Commons) by non-sysops. (This is the basis of Wikipedia:Protected titles.) Upon making an attempt, such a user receives an "Upload warning" heading and a "Protected page" link.
If you wish to confirm this, log into a non-sysop account and attempt to create/upload any page (including an image) redlinked at Wikipedia:Protected titles/Current month. —David Levy 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, while logged into your sysop account, note the cascading protection message that appears when editing the nonexistent Montefiore100.jpg description page. Then see what appears when you attempt to edit it while not logged in as a sysop. —David Levy 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David. I was operating under the assumptions of early 2005 when I created c-uploaded, and then we did have a problem with people only protecting the images at Commons. Thanks for updating me (I wish this stuff was advertised a little more widely).--Pharos 12:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spreading Its WingsEdit


I thought I'd need an Admin's help with this. There is a Wikipedian with the username Spreading its wings. I am inclined to believe that this page was created as a joke, for the following reasons:

(1): He says his name is "Patrolled Edit"
(2): His only "contributions" are the creating of his account, back in 2005
(3): He claims to be fluent in Finnish, English and Slovak, as well as having a working knowledge of German, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Italian, Slovenian, Albanian, Indonesian, Malay, Italian, Czech, Polish, Swahili, Korean, Japanese, Nauruan, French, Min Nan, and basic Fijian, Sicilian, and Vietnamese
(4): He lists "young girls and boys" under his interests
(5): He discusses his adventures in anal sex with a boy named Etamwarakunkuru (no pages link to this name other than this one)

I believe that this page should be swiftly deleted, or at the very least, throughly investigated. Thanks, --MosheA 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Apart from the blatantly expressed inclination to pedophilia, do we really believe that anyone can have a conversational level of competence in 22 languages?--Anthony.bradbury 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I happened upon this user's talk - shouldn't it also go away? ~ hydnjo talk 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Main Page view sourceEdit

This is driving me crazy... I can't seem to figure out where the links Main Page/1, etc. are coming from in the view source page of the Main Page. I looked at Special:Allmessages and a few other places. Was this something done in the background? Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The actual list of the backup Main Page (i.e., Main Page/1) didn't used to be there, and I was wondering where the code was implemented that said put an unordered list of backup main pages above the view source window. My thought was that it was put inside MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected, but I don't see it there. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
D'oh. Thanks for the timely response. --MZMcBride 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


While I appreciate that no-one has been here very long, you have been here a year longer than I have. You will, I am certain, recall our recent interaction in which I asked you to review my admin activities. I was not bullshitting, I really meant it, and I hope that you will be able to find time to do so. As I spend several hours each day in [[WP:CSD] and as appropriate in WP:AIV I know that you cannot possibly look at every action. But I would, as I said, appreciate a general overview. I am working hard for the project, and would like to be re-assured that I am doing it right.--Anthony.bradbury 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand: I am not paranoid about mythical shortcomings that I mught have engendered; I was merely following up on our previous correspondence.--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page TFA imagesEdit

In case you haven't seen this thread on the Main Page talk, I've commented there (near the end) about the picture that was used at the last minute for the Main Page blurb for the Baby Gender Mentor article. ShadowHalo kindly pointed out the edit here that put that picture in. I didn't realise until very late in the day what had been troubling me about that picture, but when you Johntex replaced it with the diagram related to the Y-chromosome, I realised that the smiley picture of the pregnant woman had contributed (in my case) to the impression I (and others) had of the initial blurb (plus picture) looking like an advert. I understand that it is difficult to find replacement images at the last minute, but would it be possible to bear that sort of thing in mind in future? Also, as others deal with this sort of thing as well, where do you think is the best place to raise this for future reference? Carcharoth 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You think that replacing a brightly-colored (including a yellow background!), manufacturer-supplied promotional image with a PD photograph of a pregnant woman made the section look more like an advertisement? To me, this screamed "advertisement!". It was created specifically to advertise the product.
I have little involvement in the FA process. I do, however, try to check Main Page/Tomorrow to ensure that the upcoming thumbnails are properly configured. (They frequently require cropping, resizing, et cetera.) This is how I noticed that a non-free promotional image was being used, so I replaced it with the best thing that I could think of on short notice. Others, of course, were welcome to find alternative replacements, but this didn't occur until late in the day.
My recommendation for avoiding this sort of problem in the future is for the users who submit proposed TFA blurbs (and Mark Pellegrini) to be more careful about the images that they include. In this instance, the non-free image was easily replaceable with a free photograph of the product removed from its packaging, and the fact that we lacked such a picture (because no one supplied it) was no excuse for placing a non-free image on the main page.
I imagine that Talk:Main Page is the best place to discuss such issues. With some foresight, the selection of an appropriate thumbnail could be discussed on the talk page of the featured article itself. —David Levy 13:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the image you replaced was more unsuitable. Remember that I never saw that image because you had replaced it before it appeared on the Main Page. I am merely saying (after becoming aware of the editing history) that the smiley pregnant woman didn't reduce the connotations of advertising. I wasn't suggesting you should have left that packaging image there, but I am saying that going straight to the Y chromosome image would have been preferable, in my opinion. BTW, talking of yellow backgrounds, do you know why copyright has a bright yellow version of the copyright symbol? There is even a red version of that symbol as well. Is there a reason why the black version isn't used? Carcharoth 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You didn't view the original picture (clearly visible in the revision history) before claiming that I switched to a "public relations-style photo" in an effort to make the product "look nice"?
As I said, the shot of a pregnant woman was the best image that I was able to come up with. It isn't as though I considered and rejected the Y chromosome diagram. I simply didn't think of it (nor, it appears, did anyone else until late in the day). Sorry.
I don't know why the yellow copyright symbol appears in that article. —David Levy 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Look, I can understand why you might feel that I said you were trying to make the product look nice, but please believe me when I say I wasn't. This is a simple misunderstanding. Have a look again at what I said:

"Hmm. Can you find the discussion and editor who did that? I'd like to point this out to them for future reference. Smiley, public relations-style photos really aren't suitable for making dodgy pregnancy test products look nice." - Carcharoth, 13 May 2007

I said that such photos are not suitable for making the products look nice. I was saying that the photo, on its own, was making the product look nice. I never claimed you switched to make it look nice, but that someone had changed it, and that it also looked nice (ie. the change and the niceness were not necessarily, and from what you've said, definitely, not connected). Forgive me for speculating on your thought processes here, but the way I see it, your first impression was seeing the packaging picture, thinking "advert and non-free image" and then changing it. My first impression was seeing the smiley pregnant woman picture and thinking "ah, how nice", scanning across to the prominent brandname and (later) thinking "that picture helped advertise the brandname". Do you see how that creates a different impression of what is going on here? I would have said the same thing regardless of what the previous image was. Carcharoth 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello David, thanks for your message on my Talk page and for letting me know of the formatting errors I made in putting up the Y Chromosome image. I'm sorry about my errors. However, the photo should never have been switched to the pregnant woman image in the first place. The most relevant photo was the photo of the product, and that is what we should have stuck with. The box photo was set up way ahead of time and there would have been no trouble if not for the last minute replacement with a less relevant photo. Best, Johntex\talk 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hello David, thanks for your reply. I am glad you agree that in certain cases non-free content can and should be used on the Main Page, when no suitable free content is available. In that case, we are almost in agreement.
The question then is whether this was such a case or not. You may or may not know that the product appears to have been discontinued. According to the article, the "exclusive reseller" stopped selling the product. We cite one source saying the product has been completely discontinued. The company's website does still has a place to attempt to buy the product. However, I have tried twice (once in late 2006 and the other time about a month ago) and both times been told the product was "out of stock". They are a tiny company and they are facing a class action lawsuit over a product that has only made a few thousand sales in the first place. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is that the product is no longer available. Naturally the fact that I have tried to buy the product and been told it is "out of stock" is original research and can't make it into the article, but it gives me confidence (along with the other informaiton that is cited in the article) that we could not buy the product and photograph it.
Anyway, I appreciate your reply. Johntex\talk 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, I have now added that information to the fair use rationale. Thanks, Johntex\talk 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page etiquetteEdit

BTW, how does the copying threads back and forth work? Is that a simpler method than other ones? I can see some advantages and disadvantages, but would be interested to know if there is a compelling reason to do so (I can think of users exercising right to vanish and getting their talk pages deleted, for one). Any other reasons? Carcharoth 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


  Barnstar of Indulgence
Since you already have a "Barnstar barnstar", it is my great pleasure to award you the first ever Barnstar of Indulgence in recognition of your above and beyond helpfulness in designing a barnstar for WikiProject Lutheranism.
Pastordavid 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

David, having had a straw poll up on the talk page for over a week, the consensus seems to have settled on Image:Barnstar of Indulgence.png. I suppose the image should be moved to commons, and also put into a template like {{The da Vinci Barnstar}}, but I didn't want to move it without checking with you first. I think "Barnstar of Indulgence" would be a good title. Again, I cannot thank you enough. Pastordavid 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate main pagesEdit

Wouldn't it be better to put all these duplicate main pages in Wikipedia-space or somewhere? As it stands, these are in article space; they come up in random article, etc. —Centrxtalk • 06:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand and logosEdit

I noticed you're one of many reverting Betacommand's commenting out of logos from pages as lacking a fair use rationale (well, I just noticed you did it once, but if you haven't noticed, he's tagging virtually every logo on Wikipedia). If you could leave him a message about how disruptive this is, especially given that fair use rationales for logos really only need be boilerplate (and hence why we've never really required them before), perhaps he'll figure out that he needs to stop. If not, it's going to need to be taken to an RfC or further, and, honestly, I think he may need a quick block to prevent further damage. Lexicon (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:ShortcutEdit

Hi again David,

Your editing caused more space to appear below the links than above them...

Thanks for your note; I've reverted the margin and padding settings, so hopefully all back in order on your screen/s. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that didn't help. Now more space appears above the links than below them, and both of the other problems remain unaffected.
May I ask what your edits are supposed to accomplish? —David Levy 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the template to the May 14 version, i.e. before I started editing it. The idea was to make the shortcut panel's appearance a little more substantial; and, more significantly, to indicate on the template's page the five parameter slots it can handle. (I was also promptedon that page to try to clarify where the template ended and the documentation began.)  Unfortunately, though, it seems to've opened a can of worms (presumably in browsers other than Firefox v2). Yours, David (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi David. Just a temporary measure since DYK has been undermanned lately. Nishkid64 and I were AWOL. It should be up to speed again tomorrow without the extra long anniveraries. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Archduke Charles paintingEdit

I tried to discover the provenance of this painting, but was only successful in finding the website it was apparently copied off of. That website says nothing about who created the painting or when; and actually the few paintings I found of him online that were source were all made after his death, and were not contemporary. Frankly, the image meets the criteria for deletion at Commons too, but I'm reluctant to nominate it. See commons:Commons:Village_pump#Obviously_PD.2C_lacking_source_information. Thanks.--Pharos 02:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Section specific maintenance templatesEdit

I just found out about TfD for Section specific maintenance templates and I believe it could have been handled differently, I have started a discussion at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Merge_and_Redirect.2C_after_speedy_close_of_TfD Jeepday (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You were correct I did misunderstand your closure, Thank you for adding your response to the discussion. Jeepday (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


You mind if I add WP:VOTE to the shortcut box? Does it have to be limited to two shortcuts only? ~I'm anonymous

Main page backupsEdit

I read the thread above with MZMcBride about the main page backups (Main Page/1, etc.), but I don't understand why you made ten of them. Is the idea here to slow down any more rogue sysops on a rampage or what? Surely one would be sufficient to prevent accidents. Just curious. You can reply here. Thanks!--Chaser - T 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I created only two of the pages (to bring the original eight up to a round number). Other users set up the rest as user/user talk subpages, and I modified their code and moved them to their current locations.
Yes, the idea is to interfere with a rogue sysop (or account hijacker) on a rampage. I dislike this plan (because I believe that it might end up doing more harm than good), but others disagree (so I decided to make the best of it). —David Levy 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the fair use rationale on Image:120px-Home Radio Mla Logo.jpgEdit

I fixed the fair use rationale on Image:120px-Home Radio Mla Logo.jpg. I hope it's okay now. You may want to use some of the text in that rationale on other radio station logo pages. --Eastmain 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging templateEdit

I'm not really much of a technical person. Is it possible to create a template to suggest merger of sections within the same article into fewer sections in that same article, therefore increasing the size of some sections but reducing the number of sections within the same article? I hope i'm not too waffly or wordy which i have a feeling i am.

Also, would i need to suggest this anywhere else? Simply south 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, i am not sure if the sections overlap, in the article i am thinking of (Maglev train). There are a lot of sections and the article could do with fewer. Simply south 10:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Admins don't do "vandalism". We just ignore all rules. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting to understand each otherEdit

Arbitrary edit pointEdit

Hi, MFD and ANB/I stuff aside, lets try to come to a common ground. I consider you to be a valuable contributor despite our disagreement on this rather trivial matter. -- Cat chi? 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I have nothing against you, Cat. I simply don't understand why you desired this deletion. If you could humor me by providing an explanation, perhaps I might come to better understand your viewpoint. —David Levy 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly there aren't any "pressing" reasons.
I merely want to cease being Cool Cat. Ideally I would like all references to "Cool Cat" become "White Cat". Our software does not allow a user to simply change a username many remnants of old account is left behind.
I was planing on doing this in several phases:
Phase 1: I was going to alter every single sig to "White Cat" - That didn't go well User:Centrix is slowly reverting every edit of User:WOPR despite being asked not to do so a few times.
Phase 2: Deletion of old userpages - This was done, although it didn't go as smoothly as I thought.
Phase 3: Rename username on all other wikis. This was partially done. I have been renamed on commons, en, and tr as well as hundreds of other wikis. I am a commons admin so I edit practically every wiki to delink images I deleted for example.
Phase 4: Alteration of userpages and rename of everything to "White Cat" including username photo - is mostly done
Phase 5: Altering pages like RFA, RFC to "White Cat". I may also alter an "RfAr" page (rename the case) after arbitrators' approval. - Not done
Phase 6: Change references to "Cool Cat" in older discussions to "White Cat" - Not done
I placed the entire plan on hold until the dust settles.
Does this answer your concerns? Is there anything else I should explain? I have no interest in conflict despite being in the center of it at the moment.
-- Cat chi? 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the current situation, do you truly believe that this deletion is a good thing? With much of the above plan not yet executed, does it really accomplish anything of benefit to you or anyone else at the present time? Do you acknowledge that the opposition is derived not from a desire to be mean to you, but from genuine concern that this will cause harm (at least for the time being)?
I understand your frustration (to some extent, at least) but it's disconcerting to see you repeatedly state that you don't care about the community's inconvenience because it isn't your problem.
If you would agree to some sort of compromise (such as the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat until the rest of the above is sorted out), it would go a long way toward resolving the conflict. —David Levy 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So long as it'd be temporary (I reserve the right to get it deleted later ;) ) I'd be fine with it. I really do NOT want a redirect. I also desire not to fork this thing at all anymore. Everyone just wants this issue dead as I see it. I do not even understand why it exploded.
Current situation in my view is ridiculous. No one but Ned Scott recreated the page. I think by persistently revering, he is damaging the project. He has a history of trolling me, at least on commons.
I do care about the community. I do not care about people visiting the red link and getting inconvenienced to click the talk page (User talk:Cool Cat).
I do not really understand the concern. It wasn't clearly explained to me. People started yelling, threatening, and blocking... Things got out of control pretty fast. From what I understand...
  • People are concerned that in discussions changing my signature may have affect the integrity of closed debates. I think this is not a realistic concern because almost all comments I posted and signed were discussions of a topic. My signature or username was never a subject of discussion as far as I can recall (aside from the latest nonsense).
  • Several people are concerned that I was trying to hide something. I also think this is unrealistic because I would simply register a new account to clear my history. All actions I have taken so far is intended to take responsibility of things I have done in the past. My username rename is probably among the most well known things on the wiki. Anyone who is anybody is well aware of it now.
Some people have been policy-lawyering by reinterpreting unrelated policies and guidelines and acting on them. My latest block for example was uncalled for (IMHO).
How do you recommend I proceed to achieve what I want (the phases I mentioned above) without irking people. I didn't expect anyone to care about this.
-- Cat chi? 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that you ask BigDT to remove the cascading protection from User:Cool Cat. Then you could create a temporary page (not a redirect) containing a statement to the effect of "This editor is now known as User:White Cat." (with the understanding that this is to be deleted at your request). Then we could discuss the remainder of your plan (and hopefuly resolve any remaining disagreements) without having this dispute stand in the way.
For what it's worth, I don't believe that you ever intended to hide anything. I do, however, see how this could be an unintended consequence of your actions. The concern, as I understand it, is that the signature replacements obscure the fact that other users' references to "Cool Cat" pertain to someone whose messages now bear a different username. This could be addressed by changing such references to "White Cat," but I suspect that there would be significant opposition to this as well.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I would be satisfied if all of the incoming links (excepting ones that pertain to this controversy) could be updated to lead to your current user page instead. If there is no consensus for changing them completely, perhaps they could be piped to retain their original appearance (Cool Cat). —David Levy 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that but I do want to give the issue at least 24 hours after the ANB/I discussion closes (gets archived). I don't want to escalate the issue.
I do not believe people will be as hostile to the possible signature alteration suggestion and etc in about 15 days. I talked to ST47 about using the bot to fix signatures provided there is consensus for it. He said it would be approved if that was the case.
Making sigs retain appearance is relatively easy (I am proficient with AWB to do this) but most of my former signatures did not even contain the word "Cool". I used to be "Cat Out" then "Cat chi?" my current sig. I want all my sigs to link to User:White Cat/07 to clear/organize "what links here". I have been almost never adressed by my sig. People generally just call me "cat" (people are lazy).
I'd like to follow your guidance on this. We may be able to discuss this better on IRC if you are available there.
-- Cat chi? 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that most of your signatures contain no visual references to either username. I was thinking of other incoming links (that aren't from your signatures), though I don't know how many exist.
Have you given any thought to linking the old signatures to a redirect along the lines of User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat)? Perhaps such a compromise would produce consensus.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I recommend that you proceed with the temporary page creation as soon as possible. It would be of tremendous benefit to all of us if we could avoid a contentious deletion review.
If you're still online, I'm available in #wikipedia right now (under the username "Lifeisunfair"). —David Levy 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat). I like this idea. I very much do. It would help me better sort "what links here" as well. For this all edits of WOPR would need to be deleted too (thats rather easy to do).
I noticed you on IRC but by the time I noticed you were gone (I was sleeping). I am available now.
I'd like the deletion discussions to end before doing what you asked. Double crossing a process really ticks of some people.
-- Cat chi? 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! I'm sorry that we missed each other on IRC, and I'm even sorrier that we were unable to avoid a deletion review. I urged Ned to withdraw it, but he declined. When that's out of the way, I hope that we can resolve all of this controversy. I don't expect Ned to agree to any sort of compromise, but I'm confident that we can build consensus within the community.
If you still wish to chat via IRC, let's schedule a time. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I should be available tonight and tomorrow. —David Levy 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Ned Scott is overall being unhelpful. He has escalated this silly issue to this point. Lets talk this Saturday (2007-06-02) at 12:00:00UTC on IRC. Try #wikimedia-commons or #wikipedia-en - both channels are more quiet and troll-free. -- Cat chi? 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Saturday at 12:00 (UTC) is fine. I'll be there.  :-) —David Levy 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cat chi? 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are you? -- Cat chi? 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit pointEdit

David, did you missed this comment? Newyorkbrad seems to be ok with something along those lines as well. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the signature changes. —David Levy 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why I would withdraw from that. Cat gets to do what he wants on his userpages, but when it comes to article and Wikipedia talk pages, that's an issue for the community. If he wants to think I'm "out to get him", fine, whatever, but that's not what's going on. If he freaks out about it then it's his own fault. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You did see this, right? -- Ned Scott 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did. A lack of consensus for the previous edits doesn't preclude the possibility of compromise. —David Levy 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There was no lack of consensus there. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I referred to "a lack of consensus for the previous edits" (meaning consensus in their favor). —David Levy 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following you now. Cat was told not to do any more updates, and that he shouldn't have been doing the updates in the first place. The ones he did do got partially reverted, and some people suggested just leaving the rest alone, but still saying he shouldn't do any more changes. They are needless changes. He rejected the redirect, ok, but that was the option given to him. He wants an exception to edit past archives in mass because he demands that he not have a redirect for his old username link. That's absurd. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you not follow? —David Levy 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think he'll be allowed to make a mass update to incoming links to User:Cool Cat rather than making a redirect.. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that some sort of compromise might be possible (despite the fact that the community rejected the first update attempt). —David Levy 07:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would we allow that when all it would take to fix the situation is for him to create a redirect. Maybe this will give you some perspective on why I bothered with his userpage redirect issue. It was pretty clear that he would use it's deletion as leverage for sig changes he was told not to do. That's not acceptable, and it's not going to happen. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
...which brings us back to my original statement that "I don't expect Ned to agree to any sort of compromise." —David Levy 07:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In 15 days people will still oppose you making sig changes to archives. Deleting the redirect does not give you leverage for your sig changes. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Only people with waring mentality would not consider a possible compromise. Btw you are better of posting your comments to me on my talk page as I will be able to more easily notice them. -- Cat chi? 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no compromise, you will not be editing the archives, and you've been blatantly warned about this by several admins. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection of User:Cool CatEdit

Hey ... I dropped in after seeing your comments on DRV. If you want to remove cascading protection based on whatever agreement you come up with here, please do so with my blessing. I only added it to stop the wheel war and I don't really care one way or the other about it. --BigDT 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to hold back on that until the deletion review is closed. Double crossing an existing process would irk some people. Btw you are better of posting your comments to me on my talk page as I will be able to more easily notice them. -- Cat chi? 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat MFD on DRVEdit

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any compromise, the MFD was improperly closed, and if we allow that then similar situations will be abused in the future. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal WillowridgeEdit

Please investigate User:Willowridge; he is going around doing subtle vandalism (such as changing people's birth years). I already posted a warning on his talk page, but I'm not an admin. Thanks, --MosheA 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Am I allowed to warn vandals if I am not an admin? If not, then I heartily apologize for doing so.

Please Delete My ImageEdit

Thanks for your help! Also, could you please delete this image of mine? I once uploaded it, a while back, when I was new to Wikipedia and had no idea what I was doing - however, it doesn't really have any encyclopedic value. Plus, I do not really want my name associated with it. Thanks again, --MosheA 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey. I had my name usurped from User:I'm anonymous in case you were uninformed. I am unsure what shortcut to remove at WP:NOT. You know what to do, correct? Use this past talk as the example if you so choose. Lord Sesshomaru


I tested it with the svg source on Internet Explorer 6.0, and there are no visible problems, so unless you can bring some proofs that it will break on IE 6.0 (screenshots perhaps), I think it's bets to change to SVG again. AzaToth 11:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the requested screenshot (captured via Internet Explorer version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300). I don't know how discernible the contrast between #ffffff (255,255,255) and #f9f9f9 (249,249,249) is on your screen, but the difference between #ffffff (255,255,255) and #f8eaba (248,234,186) should be readily apparent. —David Levy 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi there; further to our previous conversation, I don't think you need to bother. Unless you choose to. I feel that I have now got it properly together. I have become aware that many new admins have initial "teething trouble".I think I am now past mine, but remain receptive to any input which you may feel appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm confusedEdit

As not to draw more attention to it, I'm posting here: Is what I discovered an actual vulnerability or is it (silently) protected by cascade? I'm not inclined to play around with it just to see. And if I were to be posting about this on an IRC channel, should I msg someone about it or just put my discoveries there in the channel chat? Thanks for your help. --Martinship 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on my talk where I did see it. Have a good day! --Martinship 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For shortcutsEdit

Hi. I used to be called User:I'm anonymous, can you comment over here? Lord Sesshomaru

I don't like the timestamp, makes my sig look ugly. I only use four when required, like at WP:RM or WP:GA. The time is indicated in the contributions box anyway. Lord Sesshomaru
What's going to happen? May I change the page according to the discussion? Lord Sesshomaru
Sure. I have it on my watchlist. Lord Sesshomaru


I'm not going to sit by idly while someone accuses me of being part of a "quixotic denialist fringe" and espousing "Halabja denial" for asking that we source statements and make articles not read like tabloids, sorry. If that's not a personal attack, what would you call it? If someone were to say "some edits on this Talk make me suspect that the editors here are Nazis/Rapists/Murderers," it would be unacceptable innuendo and personal attack, this is no different. Italiavivi 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean...Edit

You're afraid of fun? Oh, goodness... the consequences! Rockstar (T/C) 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy. If we're in the mood for templates, maybe I should give you a 3RR warning template! DTTR. Rockstar (T/C) 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The little editEdit

Oh, I know it was it a minor. Just thought you might not have noticed. Cheers, Marskell 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


David, please don't change protected pages. If you want to argue that WP:SOURCE should direct only to the SPS section, by all means argue it, but don't go ahead and keep undoing it yourself, especially not over page protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I haven't edited the shortcut in more than a week, and there was no indication that this matter remained unresolved. I merely corrected the documentation (along with the interwiki link). You just reverted the shortcut (once again without providing any rationale beyond "I said so") and then falsely claimed that I "inadvertently changed one of the shortcuts again."
2. I suggest that you read the protection policy. Edits unrelated to the dispute that led to the page's protection are not prohibited. —David Levy 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's obviously a disputed issue, because here we are disputing it, so given the page is protected, it should be left on the protected version (which incidentally isn't the version I prefer). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You're disputing it now, and you'll notice that I haven't reverted. Heretofore, there was no indication that this was any more the subject of a dispute than the interwiki link that you accidentally changed.
Why did you refer to my correction as "inadvertent" when you knew that it accurately reflected the shortcut as it existed at the time (and had existed without complaint for the past week)? —David Levy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You've edited a protected page five times since protection, despite being asked by two admins not to. Do not change it again until it's unlocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, there is no rule against editing a protected page for reasons not pertaining to the protection.
2. Edit #1 was a minor formatting correction. Edit #2 was the insertion of a protection tag. Edit #3 was the re-insertion of the protection tag following its accidental removal. Edit #4 was the correction of the protection tag (which you changed to a semi-protection tag for some reason) and the restoration of the correct shortcut documentation and interwiki link. Edit #5 was a dummy edit, which you inexplicably responded to by removing the protection tag and once again reverting to an outdated interwiki link. Why did you do that?
3. Who, other than you, asked me not to edit the page? As noted above, Marskell merely wanted to make sure that I was aware of the protection. —David Levy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Which two shortcuts should be removed in WP:TRIVIA? I myself find WP:TRIVIA and WP:TRIV more useful than the other two. Response? Lord Sesshomaru

Now Wikipedia:Vandalism is pushing it. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru
Can you do these things from now on? Almost every time I do it it gets reverted. Or do you have other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru
While I more or less agree with the pagemove you did at WP:TRIVIA, you shouldn't have edited the redirect it created: it's not an R from shortcut and by giving it an edit history, your (undiscussed) pagemove can't be undone except by admins.--Father Goose 18:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that edit was performed accidentally when I was updating the shortcuts. I've deleted the post-move history. —David Levy 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it.--Father Goose 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


what's wrong with it Niyant 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Your latest version seems fine to me.[7] Haukur 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I just tweaked the wording again, so I hope that it's still okay. —David Levy 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, that's good too! Haukur 01:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Hiya, ta for your comments. I prefer to edit first and discuss later, which may or may not conform, but tends to make things happen. Sorry you felt annoyed, your reaction did surprise me a bit tbh. --PopUpPirate 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand Minor Edits and tick the box as I see fit, thanks. --PopUpPirate 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I do not need to explain my criteria for what I do and do not consider to be a minor edit. Thanks. --PopUpPirate 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a definitive idea what I label Minor, though don't intend to be disruptive about it. If I am still considered disruptive, despite a great amount of constructive editing and FA work, then so be it. --PopUpPirate 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catchEdit

I knew someone must have been RC patrolling (or watchlist-checking) and seen it. Thanks. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR and meEdit

Heya David, I just wanted to drop a note saying I'm glad we can get along in respect to IAR. :) Also, sorry for being an ass a few weeks ago (I was having a bad week). Rockstar (T/C) 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be nice. :) Rockstar (T/C) 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me David, can you remove one of the least important redirects in the box at Wikipedia:Be bold? That WP:SOFIXIT seems to be the most obscure IMHO. Lord Sesshomaru

You're sure? Perhaps there should be a comment on the talk page about it? Lord Sesshomaru
Go for it. Or would you prefer I bring it up there? Lord Sesshomaru
You're welcome to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold#WP:SOFIXIT. Sorry if my message looks a bit bizarre, I'm exausted and am going offline as of now. Lord Sesshomaru
No one besides me commented at Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold#WP:SOFIXIT. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru


Hello. Why would you remove an active shortcut from the list of shortcuts? The point of that box is to list shortcuts, no? So if one can type WP:TRIV instead of WP:TRIVIA that saves two keystrokes and that is what shortcuts are all about. I did not invent WP:TRIV; but if it works then it should be in the box. --Justanother 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, it has been placed back. Lord Sesshomaru
I think I don't want to deal with these matters anymore. Unless there is a policy / guideline that enforces a rule implying only two shortcuts allowed in a shortcut box, then we shouldn't go out of our way to endorse this ourselves. Your thoughts on a proposed Wikipedia rule? Lord Sesshomaru
Okay, do you want to begin something regarding this or do you have another plan? Lord Sesshomaru
Thanks David. Let me know when you do that and I'll add my two cents. Lord Sesshomaru
On an unrelated note, can you do two tasks that I was unable to do:
  1. Move Kankuro (disambiguation) to Kankuro (no need for a superfluous title)
  2. See if you can fix this template, Talk:Hannibal Lecter/Archives. I created it for the Hannibal Lecter talk page as a way to hide the archive links there. All one has to do is click the show button and they'll appear; I meant to create one for my talk page as well. However, I was unable to figure out how to add the two archived links there. Can you help?

Lord Sesshomaru


I know it's none of my business but this page is 114 kilobytes long which is unmanageable and should be archived but that's completely up to you I guess. Oh and nice to meet you. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Annoying trollEdit

BlueShrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been doing some disruptive edits around Wikipedia and has been trolling & stalking me and DDF. I've reported him to another sysop, Yamla, but Yamla still hasn't done any quick action upon this user. I get the feeling that he does this only to non-sysops and is being very careful not to make a personal attack, etc., but is currently trolling my user talk page as well as DDF's. Can you perform a CheckUser or block him or something? For evidence, see the links at User_talk:Sesshomaru#Hey, User talk:Yamla#BlueShrek (talk · contribs), User talk:Yamla#Harassment and DDF's talk history page. I suspect he is either a sockpuppet or just a very bothersome troll. Lord Sesshomaru

Id like to comment on this. This paticular user started going behind me on my edits today and undoing them after i asked him nicely to help me create a archive. The other user keeps adding in spoilers for info that hasnt happened yet. They are both on my watchlist and are talking smack about me.BlueShrek 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of reporting BlueShrek at WP:AN/I, I'm awaiting Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to take action upon this. I'm way too exausted to write another report now and no we're not talking smack, we're talking about your irritating trolling behaviour BlueShrek. Lord Sesshomaru

The results of the CheckUser report is in: please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wrestlinglover420. BlueShrek is not a sock of Wreslinglover420, but he is possibly another incarnate of TheManWhoLaughs. According to the user who performed the check, both users are sharing the same number of dynamic ips. Does this justify a permanent block? I'd ask Yamla or Deskana to look into this, but they never respond quickly to my request as you do. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru


Shouldn't the title Kenny (Kenneth) be moved to Kenny (Highlander) or Kenny (Highlander: The Series)? Maybe Kenneth (Highlander) or Kenneth (Highlander: The Series)? Lord Sesshomaru

Could you please delete this redirect, Kenny (Kenneth)? I tried putting it up for speedy but this person said otherwise. Is it really worth listing it there? I see it obviously as superfluous. Lord Sesshomaru
To be honest, I'm lazy about learning how to deal with that. Well, I guess you were right in changing the redirect location though. If you put it up for discussion, however, I'll support you. :} Lord Sesshomaru

User Page ProtectionEdit

I asked someone about protection on my user page, so that only I and other admins can edit it. There have been people that edit my page and add things i do not want to it. As i said, i asked about this and was referred to you, is there any way for me to get this kind of protection? —The preceding comment is by Wikizeta (talkcontribs) Wikizeta: Please sign your posts!

David, its a good thing one of Wikizeta's edits reminded me of something; I've been trying forever to correct this page, Portal:Dragon Ball/Things you can do. Is there some wrong format ( template? ) I'm using here? Why it doesn't become like the "Topics" box at Portal:Naruto is beyond me. Lord Sesshomaru

David, i'd like to have my page semi-protected, thanks for the help Wikizeta 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, i'll look to you if i need any other help Wikizeta 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

About redirects from Kenny (Kenneth)Edit

Hello, how are you ? After you renamed Kenny (Kenneth) to Kenny (Highlander), (congratulations, by the way, you beat me at that), I changed some links so that they pointed to the new name. But here and here, althrough the article histories show I've changed the link correctly, the diffs show I've done nothing, and you still had to change the links later. Can you explain this to me, I'm perplexed. I do hope I don't do weird things that are out of conscious control ;D Have a nice day Rosenknospe 07:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This will be brief, can you please move Full metal (disambiguation) to Full metal? Reason, "superfluous". Once this is done, I can finally update the dab at Edward Elric. Lord Sesshomaru

==Page moves==Edit

Hello! I noticed that after performing your two most recent template moves, you broke and repaired the resultant redirects (thereby preventing non-sysops from undoing the moves). Please do not do this. Thanks! —David Levy 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • sigh* The sad thing was I didn't even think about it being inappropriate. Sorry about that, and thanks for calling me on it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template questionsEdit

As you seem to be a template go-to-guy, I have a couple of questions. I wish to make a stub template list that transcludes the stubs as well as TLs them.

  1. Would it be possible to transclude them without including the attached categories (with or without altering the template itself)?
  2. Is there a not-overly-complicated way to include the current number of articles that are in a certain category, as is done with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics, or to show how many articles it is transcluded on? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm not entirely clear on what you want to do. Do I understand correctly that you want the template to transclude (and link to in {{tl}} fashion) all of the stubs of a particular type?
2. That's a bot task. You can request it as Wikipedia:Bot requests. —David Levy 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I mean to {{tl}} them and transclude them, like is done on User Box pages, to show what the template would look like when placed. But I do not wish for the list itself to show up in the stub categories.
2. Thank you, will do. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You can prevent the transcluded pages' categories from carrying over by surrounding each article's stub template transclusion[s] (and any other categories) with the <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags. This also would suppress the display of the stub templates on the list. If that's a problem, another option is to edit the actual stub template to contain the following code:
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|The exact title of the list page||[[Category:Category name]]}}
David Levy 07:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That appears to work perfectly, thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange shortcutsEdit

Aren't redirects like MOS:DP and MOS:DAB against some Wikipedia policy? I'm sure I've seen it once before, I just can't recall what else it was about exactly. Should these two redirects be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru

Are you available? Lord Sesshomaru
So I've noticed. Take your time, I'll ask tomorrow about shortcuts without the "WP" at a place where they deal with that. Or do you suggest otherwise? Lord Sesshomaru


Uh, WHIRLPOOL should be moved to Whirlpool (hash) per WP:MOS-TM. That is a trademark, which should definitely be corrected. Lord Sesshomaru

There's a fair number of cryptography algorithms that are normally named with all-capitals. When that's the normal usage in the literature, then it's preferable that they be located at that name on Wikipedia, even if it's a trademark (and I doubt that WHIRLPOOL is a trademark). — Matt Crypto 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your rewording at RFGN, it helps alot. I'm not the best at wording things, so it helps. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Double pagesEdit

There's a Honey Ryder and Honey Rider? Isn't that supposed to be one page? Lord Sesshomaru


How do I enable my account to edit pages automatically while I'm out? For example, there are a multitude of Muten-Rôshi, Pyrokinesis in fiction, and some Krillin redirects that have to be corrected. Of course, I am aiming to fix only the ones on article pages not User/bot related pages or article talk pages. Do I do something at my preferences to make this possible? Lord Sesshomaru

Cryptograhy article namingEdit

This discussion was moved to the talk page of WikiProject Cryptography. --David Göthberg 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


I've got the first two steps complete. I just don't understand the confusing final step. Can you help me on this? Oh, my bot's name is User:CorrectBot. Is it formatted about right? Lord Sesshomaru 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, I don't want to lose the bot. Can you answer this last question of mine at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CorrectBot? If you're not sure how to reply to my question there, if you know of anyone that can save me from losing it all that'd be great. Lord Sesshomaru 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I give up on the bot for good. It's all too complicated. What I would like to know now, if likely, is how to set the preferences in my account to make edits automatically. Example, like Lightmouse did, see these "auto"-contributions. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia 2Edit

I have created the template {{Trivia2}}, and would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi David. Doesn't ABBA need to be moved/renamed to Abba (band)? Perhaps just Abba per MOS:CAPS (take a look at the shortcut box there BTW). *Reminder: How about that shortcut proposal you were planning? Lord Sesshomaru 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure about B.A.T.M.A.N.. Is the hatnote there necessary? Lord Sesshomaru 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Burnett pageEdit

David, I was sorry to see an Administrator of all people making a person attack, as you did on the Erin Burnett discussion page, see WP:CIVILITY. I have responded to your claim on that page. Please respond here or on my talk page.

I truly believe that Administrators should be a good example for others to follow. Furthermore, I believe the Wikipedia Foundation would agree with that assessment. - ICarriere 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticising an individual's behavior is not a personal attack. (If it were, you'd be guilty of numerous personal attacks on that very page.)
There is no "Wikipedia Foundation." You're thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation. And don't think for a moment that your thinly veiled threat intimidates me. —David Levy 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Reminding you of the Wikipedia policy is not a threat, so don't make such claims without foundation.
You are clearly a left-wing Democrat, who watches the Daily Show, and reads the (not that there's anything wrong with that). Yet you claim someone else has bias?
You seem to think, your standing here (Admin) allows you the latitude to present your bias as fact. But I'm sorry, it does not. Like in all other matters the truth will always prevail. - ICarriere 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
1. I was referring to your obvious threat of reporting me to the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. On what do you base the assertion that I'm a "left-wing Democrat"? (My political views actually are moderate, but that's beside the point.) I sometimes watch The Daily Show, but I learned of this incident via the Usenet newsgroup. I'm not familiar with
3. I don't know what political party (if any) Burnett belongs to, and that's utterly irrelevant. My stance has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Whether the speaker of the remarks were conservative (as I gather Burnett is), liberal or centrist, my position would be exactly the same. That you feel the need to hurl accusations to the contrary doesn't lend credence to the claim that your involvement isn't politically motivated.
4. At no point did I even mention that I'm an administrator, let alone imply that this gives me higher "standing." I simply participated in the discussion. —David Levy 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey David, as you might have noticed I was inadvertently caught up in all the Erin Burnett ridiculousness and I wanted some advice (I'm a newbie). I was wondering if there is anything that can be done about ICarriere's behavior. I just think it is so out of line and I was shocked to find that much resistance to such a stupid quote. Is this normal behavior on Wiki? Furthermore, is this behavior reportable or punishable? One last thing, can ICarriere post everyone's IP information publicly? I know it isn't that hard to find, but still I thought that posting personal information was not allowed on Wiki. Thanks! You idiot kid 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Two minor changes to the Main PageEdit

Hello. I've been looking at the code for the Main Page and its templates today and noticed two minor coding errors. I thought I'd run them past you before making the changes. First, at Main Page - there are two closing div's at the bottom that don't do anything. HTML Tidy actually strips these out on its own, so removing these would have zero effect on the page. Second, at Template:WikipediaOther - the list is within a table, but since there are no cells or rows being used, the list doesn't actually appear within a table when displayed (the table code is visible in the HTML source, but all it does is add a minor amount of space below the list of links). --- RockMFR 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


point is that it isn't used, and encouraging it doesn't seem like a good idea. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Supplemental essayEdit

Hi! Thanks for working on this template, which you introduced to template-space today. Would you mind if a discussion thread was started concerning this template and it's use, in particular on WP:WIARM? I would have to say at this time that there appear to be problems with the wording. If you reply here, I would appreciate it. (BTW, this talkpage is very slow to load, do you archive at all?) posted Newbyguesses - Talk 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Certainly, feel free to discuss the wording (which I've modified in an attempt to address your concerns). For the discussions that led to the tag's creation, see Template talk:Poldetail and User talk:Radiant!#Template:Guidedetail.
Sorry, I'll archive my talk page soon. I started to reorganize my existing archives a few weeks ago, but I got sidetracked. I'm also posting this reply on your talk page, so feel free to reply there.  :-) —David Levy 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this new wording of yours is a definite improvement. >Radiant< 07:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Burnett/Leftwing BiasEdit

I'm looking through your history log and noticed that the Erin Burnett article is one of the few that you have contributed to in your 2 years on Wikipedia. You had stated that your political views were quite moderate, yet the other edits you've made on Wikipedia reveal an interesting bias.

Edits to 'Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot', edits to 'Al Franken' and now the removal of the word 'liberal' from the section which refers to the political views of 'Jon Stewart'.

Apart from your lack of edits as an Administrator; what I find most interesting is how this account is never online when the sock puppets you've defended are. And I might add, for a person who is rarely online with this account, you sure did come to their defense rather quickly.

The same sock puppets you defended were listed as probably IP spoofing in my WP:CHECKUSER report.

So I pose the question; is an Administrator on Wikipedia, using the account statsone to make controversial edits to pages. Edits which might cause his own account to fall into disrepute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICarriere (talkcontribs) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now I'm the puppet master? Wow. You'll just hurl every accusation that you can come up with, won't you?
Did you actually look at my edits to those articles? Did I insert anything "biased"? Did you happen to notice that I've reverted vandalism to such pages as Bush and George H. W. Bush?
Rush Limbaugh (for example) frequently refers to himself as "conservative." Does Jon Stewart refer to himself as "liberal"? Are you aware that he pokes fun at both conservatives and liberals on The Daily Show?
Incidentally, I'm replying here because you demanded that I stop editing your talk page. —David Levy 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, ICarriere, this is too much! You cannot accuse everyone of sockpuppetry. People will start to laugh. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox CVGEdit

Sorry to say I have another template question... I left a question on the Infobox CVG talk page about adjoining infoboxes in the same template and got no response. I was wondering if you could maybe have a look. Currently, there is no way to repeat specific things like "image" or "release date" in the same template, which is fine when you are dealing with one version of one game. But take a look at Pokemon Red and Blue. There are actually five versions in that one template, the three Japanese versions (with two separate release dates) and the two English versions, which were not direct translations of specific games, but a mish-mash of the three Japanese versions. Now consider that Pokemon Yellow is going to be merged in to that (and maybe Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen) and it just gets crazy. Separate templates would cause unnecessary repetition, as this is just variations of the same game for the same platforms by the same people. Most desirable would be to put "title = Pokemon: Blue Version", "image = blue.jpg", "released = date", "title = Pokemon: Yellow Version", "image = Yellow.jpg", "released = date", and have it show each separate entry where it was called into play. I've tried it, and currently it only displays the last entry. Is there a way to do this with the current template? If not, would it be possible?

This would also be ideal when working on a video game series page like Bubsy or Crazy Taxi (series). Instead of awkward hidden templates for each game a comprehensive temple could be placed at the top, starting with "title = Crazy Taxi series". Thanks for your time ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page image follow up discussionEdit

Hi David. I see you were tangentially involved in the brief episode about the main page TFA image a few days ago. In case you are interested, I've done a follow-up at User talk:Deskana#Main page image. Could I ask you where you think the best place is to draw attention to this sort of thing? The image talk pages don't get much traffic, but maybe that might have been a better option. Carcharoth 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)



When I want to insult you, I'll be far more clear about it. Until then, lighten up. My edit wasn't even directed at you. Also, I see you're one of those folks who likes to randomly link to WP:POINT. Was that supposed to mean something, or were you just disrupting your edit summary to make a point?

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it meant that you deliberately performed a disruptive edit for the sake of making a point (albeit a jocular one). I'm sure that you didn't intend to insult anyone, but such levity in the face of cooperation from numerous users (some with practically opposite ideas of what the page should look like) to reach an acceptable compromise is disrespectful. (That goes for this reversion as well.) Edits like those (and your request that I "lighten up") say that you don't take our efforts seriously and treat the situation as a joke. —David Levy 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
How is my edit any more disruptive than any others? Seems to me to be just another example of the use of claiming WP:POINT violations to degrade other editors in disagreements. I see nothing good that ever comes from WP:POINT. Edits like yours say that you feel that it's okay for you to insult other editors because you're participating in "compromise". It also indicates to me that you really don't get WP:IAR. But that seems to be a common problem among the editors there. Anyway, your talk page takes too long to load on my dialup connection, so I won't be able to respond very quickly to any further comment. Please don't feel insulted if I take a while to respond. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Your edits were disruptive because you reverted to an old version that you knew lacked consensus ("in blatant disregard of others' opinions") and then did so again to prove that another user's edit summary was incorrect (which it was, of course). Then when I complained, you told me to "lighten up" (further reinforcing my perception that this is a joke to you).
2. I certainly don't seek to degrade or insult you, and I've already told you that I don't ascribe your edits to such a motive. Nonetheless, I'm disheartened by your refusal to take our efforts seriously.
3. I don't believe that my (or anyone else's) attempt at compromise justifies acting with impunity. My objection pertains strictly to the fact that your edit was intentionally unproductive and performed to make light of a very frustrating situation.
4. What about WP:IAR do you believe that I "don't get"?
5. I do need to archive my talk page. Feel free to reply on yours. —David Levy 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Don't know how exactly to offer it to you, but here it is anyway.--Father Goose 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Serenity now!
Seriously, thanks.  :-) —David Levy 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, compromise?Edit

Basicaly I'd just split out poldetail and supplemental essay as a kind of compromise. Please see Template talk:Poldetail for details.

I basically saw no further discussion at Template talk:Supplemental essay and took relevant action today, now that I had some time. Seeing the fact that I got reverted today, apparently the discussion there was not completed at all. In that light, I have posted some additional replies there now.

Note that I do not consider "revert Unilateral action" a valid edit summary, as it both assumes bad faith and violates the basic precept of bold editing at the same time. Briefly, you needn't assume that bold edits are in bad faith. They may simply be just that: bold. A revert may well have been the correct thing to do, provided a good , good faith reason is provided.

Would you be willing to explain the full reasoning behind your particular edit and/or undo it? Please do not assume that I must already know, since obviously if I did, I would not have made the reverted edit in the first place. :-)

--Kim Bruning 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't believe that the restoration of a 100% redundant template is a valid compromise. Why is this warranted when only one editor has expressed disapproval of the status quo?
2. I patiently waited more than three days for you to address the talk page posts before I reverted. Only then did you reply. Given the fact that there were several unanswered messages directed toward you, it's strange to see you say that you "saw no further discussion" and decided to act.
3. Why did you believe that the apparent conclusion of a discussion in which everyone expressed disagreement with your actions and agreement with the redirect's creation justified reverting again?
4. I never assumed bad faith on your part, and I didn't intend to imply that with the edit summary in question. I merely noted the fact that your edit was unilateral (as opposed to mine, which was backed by consensus). This was an explanation of my action, not a condemnation of yours, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
5. The reasoning behind my action is that there is consensus to replace the {{poldetail}} template with the similar {{supplemental essay}} template. This was discussed beforehand and met with approval (except by you) afterward. The purpose behind this change is a desire to eliminate the misconception that we've established a new "level" of project page that serves as as a pseudo-policy "rank." It also serves to merge {{poldetail}} with {{guidedetail}} (which is why neither was simply renamed and reworded), further dispelling the notion that we've created new project page "ranks." As you dislike bureaucracy, I would think that you'd support these goals. —David Levy 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page: **** --Kim Bruning 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sun Goku Vs. Son GokuEdit

I actually intended to move Son Goku (disambiguation) to "Son Goku" (not Sun Goku) per consensus here. Can you lend a hand David? I'll manage the redirects once this is done. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll need your assistance David, if you're available. I can't move the page to Son Goku as planned, it would be great if you would do this, as I'm unable to. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Weeds / Weed (disambiguation)Edit

Hi, I took a quick look at how many of the options on the dab page could actually appear in plural, and it is basically just the unwanted plant. Furthermore, a look here should convince you that almost all pages that link to Weeds actually mean to link to Weeds (TV Series), with the exception of a couple, which I will fix. eae 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Red xEdit

Why red_x.svg converted to red_x.png by wiki engine is worse than red_x.png ? Jacek FH 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi protectionEdit

Hi David, I was wondering if you could sprotect my user page and talk page. There is a sockpuppet who uses a hopping ip and continues to edit around my user pages despite his indef. block. See User:Recoome. Do you semi-protect user pages by personal request or is that against policy? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If the sockpuppet continues to troll my user talk page using a different ip every time, what would you suggest for my talk page? I say this because I'm tired of dealing with him. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging templates againEdit

Related to my earlier section on merger templates, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#"Too_many_sections"_templates. Simply south 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have come up with ideas based on these. see User:Simply south/Condense-section. Change wording at will. Simply south 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I got itEdit

Just signed up with Windows Live Messenger and set the same name in my preferences. You could you try e-mailing me now, I suppose? Let's deal with this "Prince Zarbon" sock vandal ASAP, as he's getting on my nerves.Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did the e-mail thing work? I just signed up like two days ago, also, is Category:Romanians anime and manga characters supposed to be titled Category:Romanian anime and manga characters? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you sent me an e-mail, did you? I have confirmed my e-mail address on Windows Live, however, is there a Wikipedia page where I must do the same? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it appears that it will take a few minutes. I just sent another confirmation code. That okay? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 07:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Try now. I've just recently confirmed my e-mail address again. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, no matter what I can't get into my msn. I'll just try again tomorrow and let you know. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger iconsEdit

Hello! Now that your IE fix is in place, could you please update Image:Merge-arrows.svg to match the other icons that you improved (Image:Merge-arrow.svg and Image:Mergefrom.svg)? —David Levy 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you like me to change, exactly? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You improved the other two icons to make them resemble the original GIFs. This one doesn't look as good (all of the proportions are off, and the middle part looks sloppy when resized by MediaWiki), so it would be great if you could piece together the elements from the other two to make this one match. —David Levy 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How does it look to you now? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The stems now match, but the part where the points interlock still looks different. (The red line appears correct, but the blue line is too thick.) Would it be possible to simply copy over the arrows from the other two icons that you fixed? (Sorry, I don't know very much about SVGs.)
Thanks for doing this, by the way.  :-) —David Levy 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem :-) I think I've got it looking right now. I did use Image:Mergefrom.svg as a reference when redoing Image:Merge-arrows.svg, but I didn't copy-and-paste the arrows (in fact, I'm having a bit of trouble copying and pasting from one file to another in Inkscape). In any case, I'm by no means an expert on SVGs, but I have been able to put together a few decent images using the free program Inkscape. If you're interested in SVGs you might want to look into Inkscape. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The icon looks terrific now! I'll replace the GIF's transclusions.
I have a tiny amount of experience with very basic SVG editing (color changes and the like) in Inkscape, but I don't have the hang of it yet. When I have the time, I'd love to learn more (especially now that your IE fix is in place). Thanks again! —David Levy 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it! By the way, there's a proposal you might be interested in at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#The article message box meta template to change the icon for the "split" template. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of AppreciationEdit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For eliminating an enemy of the state, you are awarded the Defender's Barnstar. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I sincerely appreciate it. —David Levy 12:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to see that the integrity of this encyclopedia (and its sister projects) is still being upheld by people like you. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Page imageEdit

Thanks for notifying me! I had a nagging feeling that I was forgetting to do something, when I put the image on the Main Page, but I couldn't figure out what I was. Damn. I'll pay very close attention in the future, to make sure it doesn't happen again. I hope everything is fixed now. Again, thanks for notifying me. AecisBrievenbus 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the image need to be uploaded to Wikipedia as well, or can it be restored on ITN as it is? AecisBrievenbus 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing what I failed to do. I'm sorry for the hassle. AecisBrievenbus 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Could you please explain why you changed the colors on WP:TS in this edit? The previous colors looked far nicer (much more vivid). Where was this change discussed? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That edit was performed to match the actual colors now used in MediaWiki:Common.css. AzaToth changed them to "reduce the bleeding," and I then changed three of them to shift the new orange and yellow selections closer to the originals (while hopefully not increasing the bleeding) and to bring the green (which was adopted after AzaToth's edit) in line with the others.
My only interest was in keeping the colors distinct (as opposed to AzaToth's red-like orange) and comparable to one another (as opposed to AzaToth's tan-like shade of yellow and the almost neon-like shade of green that was suddenly added with almost no discussion), but I will note that some people previously complained that the original hues were too vivid. —David Levy 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your reply. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Minor" edits IIEdit

Once again, I ask that you please read Help:Minor edit and refrain from ticking the "minor" checkbox unless your edit meets the criteria outlined on that page. Thank you.
You continue to label major edits "minor." Are you even reading these messages? Some sort of acknowledgment would be nice.

Yes, I have been reading these messages. And to be honest, I feel that you're nitpicking at me for what may be minor things. Thus, I've ignored them intentionally until now. Somehow, I believe that you are targeting me alone, and no one else.

Please explain this: how is an edit "major" when I changed a handful or words, or simply reverted some vandalism? There are other more important issues to deal with, so deal with those. When I add some questionable content, then complain to me. Rollosmokes 17:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Expand, SVG ImageEdit

Hello Mr. Levy,

I cropped the SVG down to the same dimensions as the PNG currently in use, however, I worry that if I upload it to Commons, it would be deleted as per their duplication rules; do you suppose I should upload it as a local duplicate? Doo-dle-doo 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mm. You're right. And the version used is SVG... enh. I'm appeased. Doo-dle-doo 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blank Icon?Edit

Just had a thought, how about an blank image titled image:No image by intention see talk or something to use as a place holder on {{ambox}} to discourage ediotrs from assuming the no icon represents an unmet need? Will it work, and can you do it? 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had coffee yetEdit

Thanks for fixing the colours at MediaWiki:Common.css. ;) -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ambox on Template:PopcatEdit

Please note that I have replied to the comment you left on my Talk page at Template talk:Popcat. —gorgan_almighty 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PTEN & AffiliatesEdit

Rollosmokes is once again reverting WWOR and other PTEN affiliation information. Discussion is accurring -- once again -- at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations if you wish to weigh in. Spshu 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Was this comment really necessary? It seems awfully rude and dismissive to me. I see no need to suggest that people with a different opinion are being "pedantic" for demonstrating the same degree of concern about a relatively minor issue expressed by those with whom they disagree. —David Levy 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That might a matter of perspective. I'm simply using language other editors might understand. Many editors' opinions are being handwaved on the Talk page for that template, and I'm not seeing much concern expressed for their opinions being dismissed. Is this template truly a "minor issue" for you? The broken template has certainly received its share of complaints. / edg 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, considering this edit summary, yes the term "pedantic" is entirely appropriate. / edg 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Hey. Do you remember how/when/why the mainpage colors were changed from the palette displayed at the top of Wikipedia talk:Colors? There's an editor asking at Wikipedia talk:Colors#Different colors? whether there is a system behind the current choices. (reply there, if you know). Ta :) --Quiddity 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WP:RFA/AecisEdit

I have nominated WP:RFA/Aecis (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFA/Aecis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


I reverted the last edits to the template. We have been hashing it out for months, especially with the guys at T:TDYK, what is a palatable template for the [[WP:CHICOTW]. This has been the compromise resulting from months of debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding any of the other debates. They probably mostly occurred on T:TDYK pages. The long and the short of it was that I had been using an extremely large template with lots of links that violated WP:ASR. I have toned down the template quite a bit over time so that it can remain on the both the article and talk pages while a WP:CHICOTW. I use to have a long explanatory note while it was on the article page and fight about its removal while linked to the main page. I have even added a note to feel free to remove it while it is linked to the main page (like you did yesterday). I noticed you had removed it while on the main page, but just felt you were doing it because it was on the main page. Now, it seems like you are questioning its use on the article page at all. The reason for the debate is that the collaboration has been a regular WP:DYK contributor as you can see here. After a few DYKs it became a regular debate between me and DYK administrators. I first tried an explanatory comment on the article page below the template. Then, I tried changing the template gradually. Now it has been a few months since it has been a problem at WP:DYK. If you want to formally rehash the debate we can begin a new thread in a proper location for archival purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP:CHICOTW is the only WP:CO that focuses on redlinks and stubs. Thus, it is the only collaboration that rightly should have a Category:Articles actively undergoing construction type template. All of our collaborations should warn the reader that the article will likely be a different resource at the end of the week than at the beginning. Instead of cleaning up an article we take nothing and turn it into something. The last three collaborations were 2 redlinks and a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Tremendous work. You seem to be a template expert. Would you know anything about creating a new template for infant birth date and age like I have been requesting at Template_talk:Age_in_years_and_days#Infant_age?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the referral. I was about to look for help at the Help desk. I have been talking to people at {{Birth date and age}} and {{Age in years and days}} talk pages and the leading editor of {{User current age}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all you help and trying to help further. I'll go to the help desk and see where they direct me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Phil SandiferEdit

You said:

This wasn't an invocation of the snowball clause. It was a proper application of policy. Quoth Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." The suggestion that it's okay (let alone productive) for someone to unilaterally revert a bureaucrat's RfA closure is absolutely unacceptable. —David Levy 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's so silly I find it offensive. It isn't just anybody applying for adminship, it's Kelly Martin. If there are serious objections to Kelly Martin's adminship, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to see them. To see bureaucrats running scared before the disgusting rabble is not fun, but it should not be used as an excuse to stop the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dang. I missed the show. :-( Carcharoth 04:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RfCEdit

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4 Please endorse the statement of dispute if you feel it is appropriate to do so. ViridaeTalk 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have relisted the RfC for the reasons listed at the bottom of the talk page. ViridaeTalk 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Revert the relisting if you feel it is appropriate to do so or if you wish to withdraw your certification. I do not feel that it has reached a resolution after all. Your request for a response from tony has gone unanswered by him and his most recent statement does not give me any confidance that anything has changed except in the short term (I get the feeling you feel the same way) ViridaeTalk 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I haven't notified any of the participants apart from Tony and yourself - I am assuming they will have it watchlisted - judging by the talk page that is probobly correct. I am going to bed so don't expect a response for another 8 hours or so. ViridaeTalk 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

template revertsEdit

Just a question on reverting the redirect, i understand your reasoning, however both templates send the same message to the user that is warned and Template:TestTemplates says that the proper WP:UTM template should be used instead. You may be correct but i just want an explanation AFUSCO 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The instructions to which you refer were written by proponents of the new template setup. There is no consensus that this is preferable to the old one (which many users prefer and wish to continue using). Therefore, whenever it has been proposed to redirect the old templates to the new ones, there has been no consensus for this.
No matter what, the high-risk templates should not be unprotected. Even if they were redirects, they would remain highly used (and vandals could modify them to insert inappropriate content on countless pages). —David Levy 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey David, are you also going to revert the other templates that were redirected without consensus? Also, if there is an ongoing discussion concerning this, could you point me in the right direction to it, because I've been unable to find anything current of that nature. KOS | talk 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Which other templates were redirected without consensus?
I'm unaware of any ongoing discussion of this nature. It appears that AFUSCO‎ simply came across Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview and mistakenly believed that the proposed setup outlined there had been formally ratified. —David Levy 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I made that comment with the assumption that none of the templates that were being redirected had consensus to do so. I based that assumption on the fact that I can not find a discussion on it anywhere. {{bv}} which was automatically redirected to {{Blatantvandal}} was redirected to {{Uw-vandalism3}}, while {{BV}} which also was redirected to {{blatantvandal}} was redirected to {{uw-vandalism4im}} which was screwing up my monobook by giving out a level 3 warning when it should have been a level 4. Also {{Test3}} was redirected to {{uw-test3}}. I've already gone ahead and reverted those, and re-protected them. I'm waiting to see where any disscussion about all this is taking place, if any at all. KOS | talk 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to all editors this incident has negatively effected. I will do my best to check for consensus from editors before taking the word of a WikiProject page. I was just trying to help the wikiproject I had recently joined--AFUSCO 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


I've reversed the redirects, and also the unprotections of the templates I unprotected. Evidently this was a large error on my behalf, and I am deeply sorry for the trouble I have now caused. Acalamari 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Reply to something I saw on the talk page of the RFCEdit

You wrote [8]:  : "I reiterate that if you promise to make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future, I'll consider the matter resolved. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge that you've failed in either regard. I only request that you agree to make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future. What's so unreasonable about that?"

Whilst my promise, in renewing my commitment to do my best to improve Wikipedia, is more all-embracing than a simple "I will not be uncivil", it is intended to say that (and please understand that it is a promise to renew my efforts in that way in particular) it more closely expresses my opinion of the underlying importance of avoiding these personal matters and striving for a better encyclopedia.

Since I suspect that it may be necessary, I will say simply: I promise to do my utmost to avoid expressing myself in a way that gives offense, and I recognise that I failed in that respect in recent responses to your statements.

I would be happy to continue this dialog in email, but that's up to you (tonysidaway@gmail,com). There are matters here that I do not think can be discussed without giving ammunition to anyone who might want to go out of his way to worsen the atmosphere.

However don't take my suggestion of email as a wish to avoid accountability. All of my statements, in any medium, may be forwarded to the arbitration committee. My opinions are not secret. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it was a promise liek this: "I promise to do my utmost to avoid expressing myself in a way that gives offense, and I recognise that I failed in that respect in recent responses to your statements" that would have resolved this at the start. Thankyou. ViridaeTalk 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I shall consider it resolved. That form of words definitely reflects my opinion, but does not adequately represent the reasoning behind it: that all our efforts are aimed in common to this monumental building. That is where we must meet. We are collaborators in that common enterprise, and it is that impulse alone than keeps Wikipedia alive in all of us. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that the guidelines say we should use the principle of least surprise. Most people searching for 'peer-to-peer' would expect to find an article on file sharing, and won't understand the peer-to-peer networking article very well.

Now, I know, and you know that 'peer to peer' is a computer network technology, but that's not what people searching are expecting; we're supposed to do what they need, and that means that peer-to-peer needs to redirect to file sharing.

The two articles are incredibly interlinked anyway, so in every other respect it matters little; but the discussions on copyright and so forth need to be in file sharing not, peer-to-peer.

I'm not entirely happy with it, but that's the way it's got to go.WolfKeeper 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer please!Edit

Random article should just include good articles, I don't want to see a 10 word article under "Random Article". I made short articles, but I did not submit them to be put under the "Random Article" link. Only worthy articles should be submitted. Please answer this on my talk page.

Thank you for your help, --Gutzky 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello! Out of curiosity, why did you switch to the American spellings of "metabolizes" and "hospitalization"? —David Levy 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Great question, and I have only a poor answer, Firefox spell check. You would think that I should know better ans shouldn't have assumed spelling errors on that page, being a protected template and all, but they did look "funny" to me (being US-English native) and I made a bad fix. My primary reason for editing that entry was because it seemed that we were being to sensationalistic, and I was trying to make it more straight-fact, and didn't see the forest for the trees. I support whichever regional English variant is the most topic appropriate or has already been extensively used in the page being updated normally. Apologies, — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


I notice you removed links to Wikipedias with a depth of less than 5 from {{MainPageInterwikis}}. [9] Was there any discussion for such removal, and how do we determine the depth for another Wikipedia? Thanks! Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

interwiki orderingEdit

Hi David, per your response about interwiki sorting order, can I ask that you update the relevant FAQ section, as it appears I missed this? Thanks, BanyanTree 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Intricate template revert disputedEdit

Wouldn't it be nice if all these matched like these do? Let's discuss this here and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your prompt attention is appreciated. I've responded in kind. Thank you again – Conrad T. Pino 12:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I invite your response to my 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC) collaboration proposal. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the holidays and prior discussion I'm assuming this will be a busy week in general. I'm adding these links for your future reference and conveninence. I've created a project management page User:ConradPino/project/Tmbox to link the relevant items in a single place. I propose we conduct preliminary discussions at User talk:ConradPino/project/Tmbox. Full community discussions seem better at Template talk:Tmbox or perhaps another forum as your experience may suggest. – Happy Thanksgiving. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Mergingfrom}} is newEdit

I didn't cite this one earlier as it didn't get close attention. It looks nice but the wording might be off. Working with it raised the temptation to rename {{Merging}} to {{Mergingto}} following the {{Merge}}, {{Mergeto}}, {{Mergefrom}} pattern. – Conrad T. Pino 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Main PageEdit

Yes, I am sorry for that one, I should have read the comment more thoroughly. Dreamy § 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, you're my heroEdit

I am by no means the most wrapped in the flag American, but sometimes the anti-American cultural bias on wikipedia is almost too much to stomach. It seems as though anything having to do with American culture is instantly considered suspect for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm no fan of baseball either, lol to tell the truth I'm a huge European soccer fan, but I seriously thank you for the stand you took on the Bonds inclusion on ITN, and I will mentally store a lot of the info you used to prove the merits of the argument for later (responsible) use. Keep up the good work. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons QuestionEdit

I have uploaded several images I took of my hometown of Stephens City, Virginia for the town's article. I was wondering on how I can get these images uploaded/saved on Commons. I am not knowledgable on the rules of Commons, so if you could help, I would greatly apperciate it. The images in question located here. Thanks and Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 06:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, many thanks for letting me know how to upload those. I just finished uploading them into Commons and I will let you do what you have to on this end. Many thanks....NeutralHomer T:C 06:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I retagged them. I thought if they were tagged with GFDL and CC3.0 maybe they would be more "important" and less likely to get deleted. Problem after I retagged them with {{PD-self}} is they all show up as "orphan" in my gallery. Did I do something wrong? - NeutralHomer T:C 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a screenshot of my gallery. See the "orphan" tags, I am not sure why they are there. - NeutralHomer T:C 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it has. If you want (if you are an admin at Commons too) you can delete the screenshot I sent you. Again, many thanks for your help. Take Care and Enjoy Your Sunday....NeutralHomer T:C 09:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Questions (if you don't mind)Edit

I was wondering if you had an experience in adding the MediaWiki software to a website. I ask, becuase I am considering starting my own "wiki" for radio and TV stations and newspapers...a "MediaPedia", if you will :) Only problem is, I don't know how to load the software onto a website. If you would know how, or know someone who does, I would appericate any help you can give. Again, thanks for your help (last night as well). Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 03:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating portal links on the Main PageEdit

Hi David, I just posted a note on Woohookitty's talk page, but based on your recent edit, maybe I should have come here first! :-) Are you interested in supporting/making an update to the portal links there? The current discussion is at Portals on the main page. It boils down to updating the Main Page to reflect the consensus updates to the navigation bar for portals. The change involves switching from links to specific portals of varying quality to links to the major sections of the portals list page. This update resolves a long-standing and growing dissatisfaction with the narrow focus on a few portals, many of questionable quality. The proposed navigation scheme synchronizes the Main Page and navigation bar with the structure and inclusivity of the complete portals list. Thanks for your consideration. RichardF (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure you know I added my suggestions at Portals on the main page on how to have more comprehensive topical links on the Main Page. I included more detailed suggestions on how to do it at Portal talk:Contents#Topics-based contents pages project with a mock-up at Portal:Contents/Arts and culture. Would you care to comment at either of those discussions? :-) RichardF 13:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, would the Village pump be the best place to continue this discussion for the widest participation, or someplace else? RichardF 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this? The discussions are going on at Portal talk:Contents. RichardF 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Portals and contentsEdit

Semi-related to the above, there are two ongoing (long-ish) discussions around Wikipedia:Contents' sub-pages and sub-sub-pages.

The first is at Wikipedia talk:Contents (since August), and is discussing what namespace/pagetitle the various contents pages should have. TT believes they should be in mainspace, almost everyone else thinks portalspace. (eg {{Contents pages (header bar)}} is missing a few entries (categories, academic disciplines, a-z index) due to disagreements and WP:SELF violations, and people just being bold without realizing it was under discussion; and everything in it keeps getting moved to different titles.)

The second is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, and concerns pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Suggestions range from keeping all of them in mainspace, to marking "lists of lists" as disambig pages, to moving everything unsourcable to portalspace/projectspace (but then they wouldn't be in the default search, and would be hard to link to...).

I'd greatly value your input on both of these discussions. And anyone else intelligent/decisive you can rustle up! (feel free to reply here/ask anything/email me/etc) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good editEdit

Absolutely right, no need for a sentence like this at all.[10] Haukur (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone threw a curveballEdit

re: (Please test changes in a sandbox instead of breaking the template.) Had to handle a diff case... someone apparently agreed that these should section link, but arg-2 was given as a full wikipath ... which I hadn't counted on. // FrankB 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unanticipated effects can occur. That's why changes to a template's underlying code always should be tested before being implemented in the actual template. —David Levy 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Too true... but this be a "mad edit"... which is to say I expected to be doing something else, and long before this now! and checked a link.. which lead to a needed edit, and that to another, and so forth... including trying to fix up a anoms suggestion to split out of three articles into one... so instead I'm fixing up a tool, which would normally be a trivial edit, but for some reason it's written to use {namespace}... (I assume for Wkipedia: pages) which really screws up the situation. I'm usually fairly good at putting in non-invasive changes... and a sandbox wouldn't cover the cases... whatlinkshere is needed in any event; I need talk sections to check the modes link properly to same no matter what. In any event, I'm getting some inadvertent unicode or something glitching the fix. I'll take time to rewrite it so it's general, with a date too, as these things are really managed poorly overall. I'd hoped someone would follow my lead with the merge templates back when, but... guess not.
Do you know why some maintenance tags force dates, and others don't? Or why the bots don't tag these, like they do other things?
Moreover, I figure 50% or more will likely NOT have an attempt to link to a talk section (prior experience, from back when I overhauled the merge template family), so most will show the error message I'm embedding anyways... which if broken... is what is showing up. All in all, NBD. Cheers! // FrankB 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Try assuming good faith! Shit happens. If you want an opinion on my coding skill, ask CBD... it goes back to '76. And I told you, I had no desire to be fixing something that should have a damn link to a page or clear usage at least! MORE TO THE POINT ALL IN YOUR FACE TAGS SHOULD HAVE DATES... no exceptions for the time lost is to the follow-on editors who have to evaluate whether something is stale, new, or whatever. My time is precious, so kindly stop taking it up if you're gonna preach at me.
You're active enough in the various forums here that people like you NEED to emphasize the time costs to others--otherwise the kids will never have a check on their overexuberances. Otherwise ... we get the crap we have in articles today and the continued ridicule and continued loss of faith by the public. So stop being part of the problem and preaching to the wrong people and be part of the solution and preach respect for others time over all, so we retain more experts. I sandbox all the time... just look at Tt0 and tt1. This was an unusual issue. End. // FrankB 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sincere apologiesEdit

interleaved answer // FrankB 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


"Wow, is this discussion still ongoing? Is anyone going to explain how the idea relates to an encyclopedia?"

See Holiday, Portal:Holidays, Category:Holidays, etc.
That probably wasn't the reply you were looking for, so I didn't post it on the Main Page! (that's a sample of my dry humor ;-) RichardF (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:TSF TuesdayEdit

A template you created, Template:TSF Tuesday, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed your revert [11] of my edit. I think "petrol" should come before "gasoline" because there have been arguments in the past over whether or not the article should be "petrol" or "gasoline". I think it's a fitting compromise to have petrol mentioned first, since the article is at gasoline. But I won't change it back if you object, because I don't really care - I just stumbled across it one day when reading WP:LAME or something. Have a nice day! Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page redesign archivesEdit

I went to look over the discussion archives of the main page redesign, and the first couple of months of discussions are missing. I traced them back to your deletion log. The early drafts are also missing.

Please restore them. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talking of archives, please archive this talkpage! 300kb of text makes my slow computer cry! ;) (new year tidings and such too :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:G4TV.pngEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:G4TV.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Big Bang TheoryEdit

We're discussing one of your edits at Talk:Big Bang#"The Big Bang Theory. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering if you thought that this proposal to make the Simple English link more noticable suited your likings. I'm trying really hard to get this accross as this could be benifitual in many ways, it's just that no one else at the VP seems intrested. Only if you want, could you please help me get this across? Thanks. Also, as a note, I think I incorrectly filed a report at bugzilla.-- penubag  06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:G4techTV Canada.png)Edit

Thanks for uploading Image:G4techTV Canada.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for catching the image size! :) Rockstar (T/C) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least try to be nice?Edit

I haven't spoken to you in months, and now from the very first thing you say to me you're being a not nice person. Can you at least try to be nice? >Radiant< 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

David wasn't being a dick, he was simply voicing a (possibly valid) concern over your deletion nomination habits. Granted, his comment might have been more appropriately placed on your talk page, but it was not dickish. Rockstar (T/C) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Says me, I guess :-)Edit


Hmm, Even if some folks still disagree with the "deprecated" part, I think we can still all agree on the "don't support or oppose" part.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, also replied on the TFD page. I'm getting a bit sleepy, so apologies if I'm not totally clear. I'll get some zzz before discussing some more. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ITN reformEdit

You commented extensively primarily in support on monotonehell's previous proposal for ITN reform. Given recent events which have highlighted the continual problems with ITN, I've taken it, made a few modifications and I'm trying to bring it back. It's currently at User:Nil Einne/ITN reform and any comments or thoughts are appreciated. Also, although I put this on a subpage of my user page, I don't consider this my proposal and would appreciate any help in pushing this along particularly given it's a wide ranging proposal that is likely to take a very long time to get anywhere. I primarily put it there so I could work on it without creating confusion. Also, I thought it might be helpful to avoid a mad rush of people commenting so I'm just informing a few people at first Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipEdit

Hi there! Thanks for the tip about putting commons images on the main page. I could be wrong (as don't very often edit the main page), but I don't think that image of suharto is a commons image. I took it from his bio page on Wikipedia. Yes, I protected the image - but am I supposed to upload it to Commons also? Now I am confused - can you clarify the matter for me? Thanks! David Cannon (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal notabilityEdit

"For our purposes, information about the article's subject cannot be non-notable at the English Wikipedia but notable at another language's Wikipedia" I think this discussion is getting away from the main point of that thread, so moving it here. I just can't comprehend this statement at all. The exact opposite - that every language would inherently have topics of no interest to people who don't speak that language - would seem to be true. So obviously so that I feel like I must be missing something. Feel free to just ignore, but if you feel up to explaining, I will attempt to comprehend. Doceirias (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a big point to miss. This all makes a lot more sense now. Thanks! That justification is one we often use on this project, since we do a lot of articles on books, authors, and shows that have not been released outside of Japan. We definitely wouldn't want to do anything to undermine that general principal.
I do wonder if you're not carrying it to a bit of an extreme, though. While allowing that any subject that is notable and one language must be notable in another, I think there is room for a variation in degree of coverage. A popular novel series that is only in Japanese might well be justified in having a page for each novel in the series and several of the main characters (assuming the usual requirements, sources, etc) but the coverage on the English wikipedia is more likely to be a single page on the series as a whole. I've never really had a problem with this variation. Thoughts? Doceirias (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From IAREdit

You wrote, "If you read the archives, you'll find that I've actually supported (and even argued in favor of) edits to the policy that defied my personal preferences, purely for the sake of compromise and consensus-building. For this reason, some of my reversions were actually from my preferred version, not to it."

If these reversions are towards a version that you think more likely to find agreement among everyone, that they are certainly valid. If, however, you are reverting solely for the sake of stability, I'd like to convince you to work towards a compromise version instead. There's no rush in getting the wording correct, and if the page is less than optimal for a few hours we would never allow someone to use that to wikilawyer an excuse for bad behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! There's no rush. I think there is a tension between Immediatism and Eventualism. A healthy tension. Regards—Newbyguesses - Talk 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page...Edit

I replied to your comment. aido2002talkˑuserpage 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do something...Edit

Like I said, in the WNBC article, all I am advocating for is compliance with the style guidelines and consistency for the formatting of dates. Could you please do something about Rollosmokes? He keeps reverting to his preferred version, something he has made a habit of doing in many situations like this. Thanks, aido2002talkˑuserpage 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


In response to... "No, it says not to place a comma between the month and the year. I actually linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and quoted the "February 14, 1990" example on your talk page."
Oh, well thanks for clearing that up. Makes more sense that way, since the proper English way is to insert a comma there. Okay, it was all a misunderstanding. Once again, thanks for clearing that up. aido2002talk·userpage 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons images.Edit

Ouch, I knew something was missing. :/ I'll remember next time, sorry. · AndonicO Hail! 13:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I did not mean to break a standard format — I thought it was only one template. I'll be more careful in future. • Anakin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444Edit

I removed this malformed RfA from WP:RFA. There was no statement from the candidate accepting the nomination, and the editor did not transclude it himself. Generally, self-nominations should be transcluded onto the main page by the candidates themselves. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 113#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton for a discussion about a similiar case. Please let me know if you have any questions about my actions in this. Darkspots (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that Nothing444 intended to go forward with this self-nomination (given the fact that he/she transcluded it on his/her talk page, which is where I saw it and voted from before realizing that it hadn't been transcluded at WP:RFA).
I don't view a couple of formatting errors as justification for countering the user's intentions, but I also see little point in arguing about a nomination that obviously won't succeed. —David Levy 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the user's talk page, so if I am mistaken, the RfA can be restored.
As bizarre as it might seem, RfAs get created all the time by people who have no interest in actually transcluding them. As you said, not much point in discussing it. Darkspots (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc region code mapEdit

Hi. I made a comment today on the talk page for this Blu-ray article concerning the potential inconsistencies / inaccuracies in the region code map (Talk:Blu-ray_Disc#Inconsistency in region code map). Not sure if you have better info or a better map or a better reference / source (unfortunately I don't) but you had made a change to this map before so thought you might be interested. Regards, Pugetbill (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question you missedEdit

Do you hold one or more of the opinions that:

  • wikipedia is important?
  • everything must be done with the appropriate gravitas?
  • Wikipedia is not intended to be fun?

perhaps we have different basic premise-es. If so, we can probably cut out the long back-and forth pretty quickly and get back to collaborative editing. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

at talk:IAREdit

I repeat once again: I'm still waiting for someone to cite evidence of a problem. —David Levy 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is where we are most in agreement, i think. Cheers—Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Oh, hey! Yes, well, with regards to that, I would direct you to FeelFreeToBe's hanging response in the "'initial" sub-section (1st) of the section titled "Reformat?" Not that I feel that evidence of a problem has been convincingly set forth, at this point. Just that I'm roughly in agreement with him.

Anyways. Why I'm here! I came here because I only just now saw your question to me from 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC), and I apologize for not responding earlier. You responded to Newbyguesses' edit "(OK, I will bite -- see discussion page, will this fly? else UPDATE AS NECESSARY)" with a reversion, after Chardish's minor formatting edit: "(That does absolutely nothing other than repeating exactly the same information with sloppier wording.)". I mentioned that this seemed a bit brusque to me - you had reverted the edit even as I was writing about it on the talk page, forcing me to link to the old version - and you asked me if I had any tips as to how you should have worded your summary. The question itself illustrates what I had hoped to address. Your statements and responses seem to have a tendency to be a bit pugnacious, and this comes across as such a response. You could, for instance, have asked me what I meant, or explained that you hadn't meant to be overly abrupt, or accidentally offensive, just as you could have said something like "(redunant)" or "(repeats preceeding information)" in your edit summary. Instead you responded with a question that came across (to me) as having a bit of a combative edge to it. Likewise, the fully formed sentence of your edit summary sounded like you might perhaps be denegrating Newbyguesses's attempt to improve the clarity of the article. (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I reckon David is sleeping through this episode, so i will jump in again. First, number69, I do not take offence at such work as David's, or i would be a wreck. Yes, he is brusque, but i wear it. What I do not wear, is long-winded, whining posts about how hard it all is, if you get my drift, from someone. Now, David, this is your talk page, sorry for zzz, but, would you care to look at my reply to user:Heimstern at talk:Iar, and consider such a deal? Or, at least, offer your considered thoughts, at length if necessary, and tone down the brusqueness a little, just this once, for me, pal? Newbyguesses - Talk 07:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, that's okay, I just wanted to explain fully. (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected pageEdit

Just checking, David - you did not consider this edit of mine to be frivolous, did you? It was discussed on the discussion page before going up. That is, since the page got protected, I hope I am not in danger of being held partly responsible for the edit-war. Reassurance on that would be nice. Respect.Newbyguesses - Talk 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI.Newbyguesses - Talk 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember me?Edit

Hey, David. You remember me? We both used to help fight that persistent UPN Vandal guy about a year ago. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that he is back, and has chosen some new targets. I was wondering if you could help me combat him again, since we both seemed to know him best (along with contributions, but he's retired). I've left a similar notice on another admin's talk page after an IRC discussion when I discovered these edits. You can read that message for more details, such as the articles being targeted and that. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging merge templatesEdit

I just thought i would give you heads up that i have suggested the merger of {{Mergeto}} to {{Merge}}, athough they are not tagged yet until someone can add the merge tags. Simply south (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reward for HardworkEdit

  The da Vinci Barnstar
I don't know if you remember me or not, but this is for all your hard work as an admin of the English Wikipedia Wikizeta (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:ShortcutEdit

Yeah, it was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader. If we're going to pick an arbitrary number, may as well be a convenient one for me. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm... The purpose of Template:Shortcut is to list shortcuts to a page. If a page has four, it should list four. If it has six, it should list six. If you feel some of the shortcuts shouldn't exist, take it to WP:RFD. But limiting template functionality is just silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page idEdit

A long, long time ago, you added <div id="mainpage"></div> to the Main Page to allow for custom tweaks. I think it may be causing some whitespace issues. Every page in MediaWiki now has a custom CSS id, so would there be any issues with removing it? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu JintaoEdit

Hey-- I posted some comments on this news at Template_talk:In_the_news#Hu_Jintao. I hope we can come to consensus. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Nice crosspost. Your suggestion about using previews is well-met; I didn't anticipate that the image would be missing and that was my mistake. As for the content issue, I think it's best to leave that confined to the template talk page. Best, --Ryan Delaney talk 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Ignore all rulesEdit

I don't think that was vandalism. Ignoring all rules is humour, right? Is it a polic? I didn't think it was. Nothing444 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re signatureEdit

Thank you for the signature tip! Nothing444 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, if you are right, your right. And YOU are right. Nothing444 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK imageEdit

I am sorry - I had followed the image link from DYK Next Update and uploaded Image:Alvin T Smith House 1.jpg from Commons to Wikipedia and protected it. I am not sure why it is not the right image. Thanks for protecting it on Commons - I have an account there, but am only an admin here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, my upload has no period after the T, the Commons image does. Not sure how that happened, sorry and thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Main PageEdit

the answer is yes...for the most part. nat.utoronto 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and I could say the same about you. but that wouldn't get us anywhere would it. nat.utoronto 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
and if you check this revision you'll there is no difference at all except for the fact that the main page coding looks cleaner. nat.utoronto 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously take a look and and examine it, and you'll see there is absolutely no difference. nat.utoronto 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I can wait. nat.utoronto 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Main PageEdit

Hey David Levy, I just want to apologize for being overly confrontational earlier today. I created a subpage/sandbox as you and other people have suggested. And here it is: User:Nat/Main Page/Proposal 2008mar. Cheers, nat.utoronto 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Next update whitespaceEdit

It was probably being copied from the Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear page. I've edited it now so hopefully whatever problem it was causing won't recur. Gatoclass (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Please help. User:The Rouge penguin is causing many edit conflicts on a in use article, posting warnings that don't apply to me on my talk page, and CONSTANTLY wikistalking me. I would really appreciate it if you could have him stay away from me, a Wikirestraining order, i guess.

I do apologize for the rude way I have been acting in edit summaries and talk pages, I'm just fed up.

Thank you for your time. -Karaku (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Move of McFly (band)Edit

Hi, I noticed you moved the page McFly (band) to McFly. Could you please move the talk page as well? Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else handled this. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DavidEdit

Hi, your comments have been well noted. I suppose a sort of neutral edit summary (like simply saying "restore one entry for main page balance") would be more suitable in that case. Please understand that the criticism didn't specifically target at you, but some editors (both in DYK and ITN) who have been not so careful in maintaining the balance in the past. Now I realize that you are well aware of the factors in the maintenance, and I am relieved. Thank you for your effort. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename on Meta-WikiEdit

Hello; I've renamed your account to "David Levy" on Meta-Wiki, as you requested today. Hasta luego! --.anaconda (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


You might want to consider having this page archived. You can put {{Werdnabot}} onto it, if you like. — Werdna talk 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "David Levy/Archive3".