User talk:David Levy/Archive4

Active discussions

April 1Edit

Honestly, it's April Fools' Day. I know Wikipedia is serious business but lighten up a bit, only admins could see it, and they're probably most in need of a laugh 'round here. Also, don't WP:DTTR. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Ryan's edits nor Viridae's edits were vandalism, and throwing a porn template, which i was attracted to, on their talk page is seriously inappropriate. I hate April Fools jokes more than anybody, but let's not lose sight of reality. - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but I think it's time you reread some of our core policies and guidelines. For one, Ryan is free to remove any content from his talk page at any time. There is nothing inappropriate about removing your misguided warning. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I support your block here, David, despite the unblock request being granted. I've been looking through Viridae's edits, and they show a real lack of judgement. See my post on Viridae's talk page in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't about to help this year. Good to see you kept on top of it. Given the users who acted up this time also did so last year, I certainly saw basis in your blocks. All the best, --cj | talk 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

re: VPR - check today's dateEdit

Aw come on! WP:DTTR. Did you actually read what I commented out? As the second comment says it works better without the stuff I commented out. I'll go back and explain in the comment what I did and hope you don't object. If you revert again, I'll leave it alone and assume that your adherence to guidelines (even on April 1st) takes precendence over your sense of humor. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:ViridaeEdit

Hi David, I've undone your block of this user. He was given the bare minimum of warnings and his disruption was fairly limited. It seems discourteous to me to block a user in good standing under these circumstances. I will understand if you wish to contes this action. Best, ~ Riana 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Omegatron. See the button at the top right that says "log out"? Press it and don't press it again until April 2. John Reaves 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The only other way to stop the edit warring at MediaWiki:Tagline (or any other MediaWiki page) is to seek emergency desysopping and/or an arbitration case. If someone gets desysopped over using admin tools to play April Fools jokes, then that should put an end to it next year. David, I would make a statement like this at arbitration if you chose to take it there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
David, I wasn't aware of how far this had escalated or that the tagline was being edit warred over (things picked up since I last checked I suppose). I thought you were blocking based on the state of things about an hour or two ago, in which case I feel an unblock would have been appropriate. Feel free to reblock or have me do it. Sorry for being hasty. John Reaves 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry this is a week late, I've been away. Just letting you know that while I continue to beleive that blocking an established user with a minimum of warning is inappropriate, I can understand how your actions were justifiable under the circumstances. You're absolutely right that my unblock was not based in policy, and you have my apologies. If you wish to pursue this further you are welcome to. once again, apologies. ~ Riana 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinked you dropped this somewhere...Edit

Here, I think you dropped this somewhere. Maybe a kitten will help turn that frown upside down! ViridaeTalk 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI threadEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MediaWiki:Tagline edit warring, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The delete thingyEdit

It was a one time deal, don't worry.

Plus, it's April 1st, how can you not prank someone? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection on Grandfather paradox?Edit

I know that it's being vandalized because it's linked to from Google, but so far, the vandals have been IPs or new members. I don't see why semi-protection isn't sufficient? No need to go into full blast full protection unless there's a dispute going on or for some reason, established users are vandalizing the article. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the article was previously semiprotected first. Still, full seems a bit excessive since I thought that was usually reserved for articles where established users debated on an article so neither side was 'right' and had to resolve the issue before editing again. I would imagine the attention the article is getting is also beneficial in that people might want to improve it since it's really popular now, but again, I'm just an idealist :) Gary King (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NoteEdit

  Thank you for your "warning", but we are trying to have a little holiday humor here, so please remember that nobody cares that you don't have the holiday spirit and would like to remind you that you need to get out once and a while. Our community is looking for a good laugh and will not find overly stick-in-the-mud individuals pleasant or welcome. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so once a year it's custom to ease back a bit and relax. If you'd like to have a little more humor, I suggest trying to enjoy the holiday rather than oppress it. Thank you. --Charitwo talk 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your links to Uncyclopedia perfectly illustrate the correct "community" for such nonsense. At Wikipedia, your edit was patent vandalism. If you do it again, I hope that you'll find the same degree of "humor" in your block. —David Levy 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd think so wouldn't you? You need to get the block out of your head and worry about more serious offenses like affecting the entire site as a whole or blanking the entire ANI (it happened twice). Rather than worrying about a simple find/replace in notepad that makes people think they're dyslexic for an April Fools prank, a diff that I was watching mind you. And you're trying to scare me with block threats, you have more important things to worry about David. Go do something useful for a change and stop bothering me.
Another thing, your talk page is 344 sections and 332kb long, you could stand a good archiving, how about having some consideration for those who choose to contact you and allow some decent page loads.
And before I leave this huge page, I ever so humbly request you keep conversations on the same page. If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will be watching for a reply on your talk page, not my own. Goodday, sir. --Charitwo talk 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't recall accusing you of failing to contribute productively to our community or of contributing primarily to Uncyclopedia (which I didn't even know that you'd edited). I merely noted that "such nonsense" belongs at the latter, not that you belong there.
2. What makes you think that I'm ignoring more serious offenses? I've issued numerous warnings (including one to Kwsn for the "Nuke this page" edit) and two blocks (of sysops involved in the tagline vandalism) today.
I don't know what leads you to believe that I've singled you out, as I merely reverted your vandalism and issued a polite warning used in such situations every day of the year.
3. No, I'm not trying to scare you. I'm warning you that if you continue to vandalise pages, you'll be blocked. Again, this is standard procedure. If you don't want me to "bother" you, simply refrain from committing vandalism. It's that simple.
4. I thank you for the reminder to archive my talk page (which I shall do shortly), but I'll also note that because the page that you vandalised was so large, my first attempt to revert the edit actually caused my browser to freeze.
5. I'll gladly respond here if that's your preference, but given the fact that I initiated our communication on your talk page, shouldn't you have followed your own advice? —David Levy 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It was a diff that I was actually watching and was going to revert in due time, I was never intending on leaving it like that. It was a fast swap and a fast fix.
2. I'm saying my dyslexic swap was trivial to warn for, it did actually fool a few people. You merely got to it before I did.
3. I'm not vandalizing anything, it was limited to one edit on one page, it was controlled. I can understand if I replaced a certain word with something offensive, like what was in the tagline or something.
4. haythx, the length of AN/I wasn't an issue for me, it was the edit conflicts.
5. A warning template isn't exactly the start of a conversation.
ok bye --Charitwo talk 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1/2. I believe you, but that doesn't make it okay.
3. I'm sorry, but your edit was vandalism. Was it the worst vandalism imaginable? No, of course not. It wasn't even close to that. But it was vandalism, and I responded accordingly (with a polite warning).
4. Yeah, I also encountered a couple of edit conflicts, but that happens quite often.
5. Your initial post to my talk page certainly appears to be a direct reply, but that's fine. I'll gladly post wherever people prefer. —David Levy 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Main PageEdit

If you can find one person who got confused and/or offended because of a changed link that was up for 11 minutes, feel free to block me. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't find April Fools jokes to be amusing or constructive, your blocks were completely out of line. A simple friendly note asking them not to do so, not a canned template and then an against-policy block would be fine. Your blocks were are completely unacceptable behavior. Are you open for recall? If so, I would start one. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only know about the Viridae case, and one out-of-line block is quite enough, so that addresses your first point. I can't really tell you anything about the other two blocks.
About your second point: Your cited claim was disruption. According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, the policy for vandalism disruption was "persistent vandalism," which was clearly not, at least in the case of Viridae, the case. As I said, a friendly note asking for them to stop would have been enough. Additionally, the edits were clearly meant as good-faith humor. About your point on vandalising millions of articles, so now if a new user vandalizes a single mainspace article, (s)he should be warned lightly, but if (s)he vandalizes a template, (s)he should be indef blocked immediately for vandalizing the probably large number of articles that the template is transcluded onto? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Too much has already been said on the matter. As was pointed out on my talk, my edit was, in relation to others, particularly unobtrusive. Also, I can assure you that I would have reverted myself if the edit had not been noticed for, say, an hour. I'm surprised it survived for 11 minutes. Anyways, I appreciate your commitment to hard work on Wikipedia, even on silly days. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the timeline of events, so there was no need for that. Please tell me where this polite warning you mentioned was. All I saw was a template intended for new users that was not likely to be taken seriously. Merovingian, it's not that I don't appreciated David's work, it's just that I think he showed exceptionally poor judgment on this case. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I now realize I overreacted. While I still disagree with what you did, you have your own opinion,; I shouldn't have posted such an inflammatory message. Thanks for your well wishes on my illness; I'm feeling a bit better now. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent blocksEdit

I just wanted to drop a note saying that fully support your blocks earlier today. Screwing with the Tagline was simply unacceptable, as I clearly told Omegatron when he did it the first time. Viridae also went far overboard with these ridiculous "pranks." I'm disappointed that both John Reaves and Riana unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to echo MZMcBride's sentiment, especially since I noticed you've been getting beaten up pretty badly for the past couple days. It's nice to see that some people still take the encyclopedia with some degree of seriousness - hang in there. east.718 at 06:44, April 2, 2008

Yeah, I am sorry about thatEdit

Yeah, I am sorry about that. I know that I sometimes make a mistake. Please excuse me on that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day guidelineEdit

David, given what happened this year, I don't think the current guidelines or policies go far enough. It would be nice not to have to do this, but what happened this year didn't encourage me - and since the Wikipedia community continually grows and changes, there will always be some people willing to engage in this sort of behaviour. I'm thinking of gathering some evidence and links to discussions about this year, and the last few years, and then proposing a guideline for community approval. Would you be able to help with this, or suggest the best places to advertise this? Does anything already exist? Would this be best handled as a new page or sections or notes in existing guidelines and policies? Also, is this best done now (while the iron is hot) or in a month or so? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I just noticed that discussion of this nature already is underway at Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Day, though I'm thinking that it might be better to wait until everyone's a bit calmer. —David Levy 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some good discussion there, great poems, and a link to a nice collection of gags. Now, if only the more irresponsible gags can be avoided next year, it should be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan GerbilEdit

David, an editor can do with their userpage more or less as they wish, within bounds of policy. There isn't any policy forbidding a person from removing a warning from their userpage. Even the guideline on the issue clearly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" David, you're out of line. Being tempted to revert the removal is your problem, not Ryans, and you're out of line for making it a problem for Ryan since you would be acting outside the bounds of policy and guideline. There's been a long history of hijinx on Wikipedia on April Fool's day. It's tradition around here 2004200520062007. You know this. Templating Ryan was completely unnecessary, when a polite message asking him to stop would have sufficed. Instead, you're issuing warnings, demanding promises, and the like. Shame on you. SHAME on you. Ryan deserves an apology from you. Your insensitivity and actions outside of the bounds of policy and guideline have lead to his announcement to the effect he's quitting Wikipedia. This was entirely avoidable had you acted in a more appropriate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree think warnings were excessive, since Ryan should already know not to make edits like this. But, Hammersoft, I think you're being too harsh on David. Nobody should have to spend time cleaning up nonsense added by other admins to protected pages, and I can sympatize with the frustration of running into that sort of thing.
In any case, it may be better to let the matter pass, instead of complaining at either the admins who made blocks or the admins who were blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes ManhattanEdit

This is a very big event; we have commitments made with Columbia University, and there are reporters coming from the The Wall Street Journal, WNYC New York Public Radio, and maybe The New Yorker. Last time we postponed, and the weather was just fine. Anyway, if there is a bit of rain, it will be light. And you can't really predict the future: if there is at all a possibility of your coming, you and your friend must register here before 8 PM EST.--Pharos (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's even a small chance you can come, you should still register. There's no downside to registering and not coming, but there is a distinct downside to coming and not registering on time (we'll have trouble letting you in).--Pharos (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RfCEdit

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Edit

I've informed an administrator. I'm not too sure how vandal control works on Wikipedia, but I hope he'll take appropriate action. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeContentMeta and derivativesEdit

Best take this up with you instead of the mostly unwatched Template talk:FreeContentMeta - there's really no reason for the boxes to be that shade of green. It's immediately eye-grabbing against the faint blues, greys, and whites of normal backgrounds. I know the need to disambiguate sister projects and free wikis, but this is the wrong way to do it: we should be advertising our wikis first. I've edited the DW wikia box as a bold test to make it look different but not too different: see Template:TardisIndexFile. Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

TardisIndexFileEdit

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. EdokterTalk 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).
Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.
This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.
On the English Wikipedia, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikia and Wikimedia do have a connection. Adding the icon manually is equally convulted; why not just add the link in the most convenient method available, and not resort to any weird external link construct or extra images? I am trying to keep everyting as simple as possible and the two of you are not helping; roughly half (if not more) wikia linkboxes are broken due to the 'wikia:' links not working anymore. Whenever I come accross any of those, I intend to fix them, and do so in a foolproof way. So no, I'm not happy. That icon suggests it is an external link, while in truth it is a valid wikilink. EdokterTalk 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're complaining about. The above solution breaks nothing and serves an important purpose. I don't know what you mean by "valid wikilink" or what "connection" between Wikimedia and Wikia you believe justifies referring to them as "sister sites." (The fact that Wikia was founded by people affiliated with Wikimedia?)
Again, Wikia is a separate company that is not "run by the Wikimedia Foundation." This should made be clear to readers (who don't care about what type of code is used or how this impacts what they see). Why do you object to that? —David Levy 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It has shown that link without an icon for years, and Wikia is (was) regarded as an informal sister project, as it was founded by Jimbo. That is one of the reason the 'wikia:' interwiki map existed in the first place. However, I'll drop the icon subject. EdokterTalk 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm glad to hear it. Just for the record, I'll direct your attention to the interwiki map. Note that my friend's (non-Wikia) wiki is on that list, and I assure you that he isn't named Jimbo and the wiki isn't regarded as an informal sister project.  :-)
On an unrelated note, what is the status of the "minor edit" issue? —David Levy 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, not worth bickering about. Reading WP:MINOR again, I may have erred on the revert/dispute part, but it's just a little "m" I myself usually ignore. Calling it prone to abuse is overrating it's purpose. EdokterTalk 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just a little "m." When a user hides minor edits (via the "Hide minor edits" link) on his/her watchlist or the recent changes list, edits labeled "minor" are omitted.
In other words, while this presumably wasn't your intention, you were partially hiding your reversions from review. That's why "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

btwEdit

I just wanted to note a few things:

  • According to WP:SRD, soft redirects are a guideline and not a policy.
  • I can feel free to remove comments from my talk page after I've read them, I am in no way obligated to reply to anyone should I not feel a reply is warranted. It may be considered rude to do this, but by doing so, it acknowledges that I have infact read said messages, so to speak.
  • You're making a mountain out of a molehill, my talk page is not disrupting the project in anyway having it like that. I'm pretty sure there are better things you can do with your time, or are there not? (I don't know, I'm not you. Only you know what you do with your time.)
  • Borderline stalking me by keeping tabs on my edits, kinda creepy especially when I'm not doing anything wrong. The invisible text and edit summaries were a little uncivil, but that was mainly out of frustration. That has since ceased.
  • It was not intent to "abuse the minor edit functionality", my preferences have the "mark all edits minor as default" box ticked, because I'm a wikignome-type. If I feel an edit is a "major edit" I uncheck the box, but sometimes I may forget to do so.

You can reply here, because I certainly won't be reading /Messages, just like you said. :) --Charitwo talk 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The soft redirect issue is purely peripheral. The problem is that you've deliberately attempted to prevent users from communicating with you via your talk page. As that's the sole legitimate primary purpose of said page, anything else constitutes abuse.
2. Indeed, you're allowed to remove messages from your talk page (which is why I didn't restore any). And indeed, you aren't obligated to reply to anyone, but you aren't entitled to hinder people's attempts at communication.
3. "Keeping tabs on [your] edits"? I have your user/talk pages watchlisted (along with those of every of user whose talk page I've edited over the past three years).
4. Thanks for the explanation regarding the "minor edits." Please try to be more careful. —David Levy 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Welp, you just removed just about the only reason I visit Wikipedia for cause I get bored at work. So much for countervandalism! --Charitwo talk 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to roll back edits, you must be willing to receive messages from the users whose edits you roll back (and anyone else who takes issue). —David Levy 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a shame because I watchlisted the messages subpage. --Charitwo talk 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you intend to read the messages and respond if/when appropriate? —David Levy 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. --Charitwo talk 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. I've re-enabled rollback. —David Levy 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NoteEdit

I'm pleased to inform you that RyanGerbil has apparently decided to return. :) Enigma message Review 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

noteEdit

Hi it's BowserQs i just want u to know can u give me back my account bowserQ plz all my work is in that account —Preceding unsigned comment added by BowserQs (talkcontribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image space templatesEdit

Hi, David - I'd definitely appreciate any help you can give me. Yesterday I found the sorry state of WP:TMIN as compared to WP:AMBOX. Also, the categorization system for image maintenance is a huge mess, with overlapping and redundant category for templates and maintenance subcategories - for example, we had both Category:Images without source and Category:Images with unknown source, as well as duplicate categories for image renaming and multitudes of other problems. Most of the problematic categories are caused by duplicate and/or redundant imagespace templates. Most of the templates lack documentation subpages and many are protected. The templates also often do not contain links to the applicable Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I'm hoping to start a standardization effort, and I guess you saw that I started yesterday with {{Rename media}} (to which I redirected {{ifr}}) and {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons‎}}.

I'd like to standardize the imagespace cleanup templates with a metatemplate...I'm not particularly attached to {{Ambox}} for any reason, but it's already used by {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and was more convenient than writing a new metatemplate. I noticed you immediately reverted my changes with an edit summary that stated they weren't article space templates - I understand this, can you point me to a more appropriate metatemplate and/or to a place this has been discussed before? I had searched extensively and couldn't find anything, and imagespace isn't even listed at the Template Standardization Wikiproject. Also, if I need to raise this proposal in another forum, would love a pointer there. WP:TMIN has the feel of an abandoned or extremely low-traffic page and I doubt a posting there would attract any visibility.

Also, I noticed that you also reverted my transclusion of a {{documentation}} page (which undid my attempted recategorizations) and wikilinks to applicable policy in the text - why was that?

Thank you for any advice you can provide! With respect - Kelly hi! 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Regarding Template talk:Imbox: Could we change the heading of your "Proposed changes" section to something that can be used as a name when it is later discussed? How about "David L's proposal" or perhaps "Levy's proposal"? I changed my suggestion to "David G's colours". (Your family name is much better as a proposal name than my "Gothberg"...)
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

admin blockingEdit

I noticed after you blocked admin User:Viridae that User:Riana unblocked him and said he didn't get a warning. First of all, this was blatent vandalism, no need for a warning. And it was very sexual in content. Although wikipedia does not cater to children, it also shouldn't throw sexuality into their faces if they aren't looking for it. I think both editors should be punished severly. The first editor was way out of line, and totally got away with it. The second editor is his friend, and was clearly unblocking him because of this, which is a total conflict of interest and also out of line. They should both be punished for this. Please do something, we shouldn't allow users (ESP admin!) get away with things like this. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Infosphere linkEdit

I saw your edit on the Into the Wild Green Yonder article, that you changed the article link from an interwiki link to an external domain. I originally forgot to check the history and assumed that someone was tired of the old domain (futurama.overt-ops.com) I assume someone have precision'ed the link. However, since that was not the case, and I did not feel like making a "ninja" edit to explain that in a new summary, I am explaining myself here. While some of our content may non-free (such as images from the show), our text content are released under a Creative Commons license, something which an encouraged part of an interwiki link.

Remember that in order for our wiki even to become an interwiki link, it must fulfil some requirements (as described here and here). Since it went through that due to (A) it had content of relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation, (B) it was regularity updated and had a moderate amount of content, (C) had CC license and non-profit and (D) did not (and does not) contain anything illegal, it can be considered a useful Interwiki link for anything Futurama related. Your summary suggests that it is not a Wikimedia site, which is true, but so isn't Wikia, and they are linked to quite often (through interwiki links), among other sites.

Consider this my defence for "reverting" your edit. --Svippong 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a follow up for you, we have recently changed our license to a free license. I have linked you to the conversation there, you can also read our copyright statement. I give credit to you for the motivation. --Svippong 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's the right thing to do...Edit

Why not do it? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, probably, but wanted to commend you on your handling of this. From what I could see, you were quite fair to both sides of the dispute and managed to be utterly and intelligently persuasive while doing so. I'm impressed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia DramaticaEdit

Hey, no problem. I'm not the kind of person who gets upset when someone fixes my mistakes. Thanks for stepping in. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bold watchlist itemsEdit

See here, specifically Brion's three bullets.

Also, using &nbsp; usually causes unsightly space, so I prefer <p></p>. I just filed bugzilla:14176 for a consistent way to disable MediaWiki messages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar searchEdit

Howdy. Two things.

Thanks. Your advice/opinion is as always appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks. (1 more time at Image:Light-gray-border search box at top.png please, it still had the g7 tag and has been redeleted before I could update it!) Ta. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help neededEdit

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ImageEdit

Bloody hell, how could I have forgotten to do that? Shame on me - walk away from Wikipedia for two years, and your memory starts to go. Let this be a lesson to us all :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ad subdirectoryEdit

What does that mean exactly? Did I screw up in replacing the image? --Stephen 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, learnt something new. --Stephen 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

problems with docs for one signature templateEdit

See Template_talk:Unsigned#the_example_for_User12_is_broken --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Asistance with formatingEdit

Hello, I would like to ask you for some help. Is there a way to evenly spread the text in two columns, across their height? See here. I'm trying to reproduce the bottom of this document for Wikisource. Also, I can't understand why the signature images on the right place themselves under the text line, and not next to it. Please help me if you can. Thanks in advance! diego_pmc (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help...Edit

I'm really sorry to bother, but I need your help.

This is a little embarressing. I changed my password yesterday, and I can't remember what it is. My username is Gladiator2 and now I can't get back in.

I have no idea how I can prove I'm Gladiator2, and I never gave wikipedia my email address...

If there's any way you could help me, I'd be really grateful. My email is [removed]

thanks,

Gladiator2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.54.126 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BarnstarEdit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Since this user loves you so much, how can I not give you this to spread the love all around? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ATT HeaderEdit

David, I don't so much oppose ATT as I oppose trying to create a new process e.g., a non-consensus summary of policy pages. If you want to consolidate several policy pages into one at ATT you would likely have my support. But adding an additional layer of instruction creep is in my mind a flawed direction. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To better daysEdit

David, I can see that you've worked really hard on ATT and trying to get a consensus built there. I am sorry that we got off badly today in our relationship. I know that we both have a strong dedication to the project and probably have more in common than we have differences. I hope to work together with you in the future. Cheers and a pleasant evening. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Our discussion at ATTEdit

David, I've removed the section containing our dispute from yesterday. If you want ot return it, I won't object, but it seems to distract people from the more important issues and serves no purpose. I'll suppport your choice in the matter. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:NutshellEdit

Hi, thanks for reverting me, didn't know that that edit would break anything. Thanks again! Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:ConfusingEdit

Ah, sorry, my bad. But amusingly appropriate for Template:Confusing... Klausness (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Video gamesEdit

Don't mean to harass your template knowledge, but would you mind having a look through User:Kariteh/Sandbox? It is intended as a replacement for Template:WikiProject Video games, incorporating ideas from the talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Mainly, that non-mainspace are automatically assigned appropriate tags (Category: gets Category-Class, etc.) as well as incoprorate the new C-Class. Can you just take a quick look at it and make sure it won't explode? JohnnyMrNinja 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's POTDEdit

Was there some logical reason you removed the emboldened article from today's POTD blurb?[1] Why should this one NOT have one, while the others this month do? It really does not help when you do not provide a clear explanation in the edit summary. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the image is primarily being used on the John W. Geary article, which is why that article is emboldened in the blurb. Hiester Clymer is also a possibility, but that page is currently a stub. I do not know any other article, in the words of WP:POTD/G, "is best represented by the image". Do you have a suggestion? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeEdit

I don't think that people are interested in horse trading, swapping article spellings or whatever and I'm certainly not in any kind of a position to make any kind of deal. I don't have a problem with inconsistency on this level. I have to cope with American idioms and spellings every day. It's a pity that some people who can't live with cultural standards outside of their own experience demand homogeni[s/z]ation. You might perhaps see some hypocrisy there, I dunno. To be honest I've totally lost faith in this project to deliver a product of any credibility given the current state of WWII article. Jooler (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-detailsEdit

[relocated to Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal]

DeletionEdit

Yes... I am uninstalling twinkle... thank you for restoring it, I didn't see that it deleted anything... --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, Could you please delete the Ambox image that appears on Stan Lathan's page. We keep track of his profile from our office and monitor any updates. Unsure why there is a big warning above his page and he would like it removed immediately. As you're the author, could you please delete/remove the warning box as soon as possible. Thank you. June 1, 2009 Zellebonney (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Zelle Bonney

When you're rightEdit

The watchlist notice for the main page redesign proposal was a serious mistake. Instead of holding a discussion to determine if the proposed process has support to move forward, the watchlist notice has done nothing more than draw people in who all seem to be assuming the process was approved (and thus implemented). You were right; the pump is where the discussion should have started. - auburnpilot talk 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page RedesignEdit

Hi David, you really got into some heated discussion on the Main Page Redesign talk page. If you've got a moment, please take a peek at my current submission and let me know your views - I'd love to hear your opinion of it. My submission » Kind regards - Pretzelschatters 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

XXbox Template formattingEdit

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cmbox ... showing you were up to your ears in this project.

Would you take a look at the "#if: {{{small}}}" coding parameter effects/code on Template:Tracking category(edit talk links history) (It's right at the tip top... though a matching if may occur later as well) and see if you can figure how to work such into these damnable XXbox templates. You all have made no provision for floating them left and allowing some other long element to there right, and that my friend is a frequent need. They scrunch up horribly when squeezed by such elements that have prior claim to their right margin.

This would be of particular use on category pages, where various portal and interwiki templates COULD peacefully share the same vertical space, were these better designed. Forcing such correspondence with a table give the unpleasant... Geology blah look.

My wish would be for you to have width, margin, float and padding styling parameters available to the tag-hanging editors. [See basic technique in Template:Left66(edit talk links history), or {{interwikicat-grp}} but you shouldn't need to.] ASSUMING one knows all the factors that goes into a page so relying on .Css defs alone, is a weakness in the design, imho. Passing alternatively capitalized or all-lower parameters works well template to template, so I suspect your core templates would need all CAPS like {{catlist}} to {{Catlist-up}} or {{cms-catlist-up}} variants. The typical messagebox is a front-end like those later too, if I'm tracking this all the way.

Oh, the "small" quick shift mode is also desired as well as the style overrides... small may be made to change icon size too, and that usually is good "safe" planning.

I'll leave a "small=1" line in the geology call, so you can test using a replacement of tt0-tt3 or whatever, then revert that when installed. Thanks // FrankB 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the edit line reads: (An alias/redirect name)

{{catdiffuse|small=1}}

// FrankB 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Hello! This falls outside my area of expertise, but I suspect that David Göthberg would be able to assist you. He knows far more about this sort of thing than I do. —David Levy 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What! Huh! You mean I can't hold you responsible?!! <g> Have to confess I'm a tad confused for I figured you know enough to tack in style={{#if:{{{margin|}}}|margin:{{{margin}}}}} and suchlike... but at least I knew you for anther old hand... I'll give him a holler later, or maybe AzaToth. Should really do the RFA thing one day. Sigh. // FrankB 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deja vuEdit

Was there a competition last time round for the Main Page redesign? That must have been before I got involved. Any links? Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on some of the threads on the design project's talk page as well. I do rather like this one, and some of the other "tabbed" designs. Are there arguments against tabbed designs? I think people are more likely to click between tabs than to scroll down off the screen. I rarely scroll down on the current Main Page - normally only if there is a link there I might need, and then I go "ooh, nice picture!! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:RollosmokesEdit

I couldn't care less what that bozo calls me or says to me. But someone else in the "vulture squad" might. In fact, indef-blocks usually get their talk pages wiped. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the blocking admin took care of it. No hay problema. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikipediaOtherEdit

I really don't understand why you are so insistent on keeping this table in. It's not proper wiki markup and it's not the correct way to create a margin. Nobody ever intended it to be like this - it is clearly a mistake. It's stupid to keep it in just because it's been like this for years. --- RockMFR 03:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you say this is not a mistake? It has text-align attributes. It was clearly intended to center the text. --- RockMFR 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I would change it to the correct implementation, but I do believe there should be extra space there at all. I'm going to bring this up on Talk:Main Page, as I do not believe there is consensus for this to be there. --- RockMFR 06:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILM's style guidelinesEdit

Hello, at WP:MOSFILM, {{Subcat guideline}} seems to show a red-linked "style guideline" in the "Shortcuts" box within the template. I think that your recent edit is related. I notice that WP:MUSIC also has a similar problem. What can be done to fix this? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response and quick fix! :) Happy editing! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page --> Main pageEdit

Just curious, is this style correction overdue too?  :-) RichardF (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Essay:When the Sournes' Accuracy Is DisputedEdit

Thank you for updating my Essay header. WPFactRef must be a newly-organized Project that came along on or around my last addition to the Essay (as I'm still locating Sources for the discussion therein). B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken GriffeyEdit

We should see what other people say about it at WP:Baseball, I'm betting most people agree with me--Yankees10 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel like wasting my time with this, even though I know i'm right, and there are other Jr, Sr. situations like this that are the same way, which I am not going to tell you about because you'll do the same thing to those--Yankees10 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because both of the players names are KEN GRIFFEY--Yankees10 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriousley, just bring it to WP:baseball, see what other people say--Yankees10 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just put this to rest, theres just no reason why Ken Griffey should go straight to Griffey Sr.--Yankees10 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I saw the list and noticed that the only players that dont have it the way you think it should be are all Hall of Famers or All-Stars--Yankees10 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to one of the players' articles (usually the father's) section, it leads to the fathers because he is usually more known and were All-Stars and Hall of Famers, and in the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to a two-article disambiguation page, they are both known the same and neither were better than the other--Yankees10 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still just not seeing the point in having it go to Griffey, yes I have read you and Wknight94's reasons, but I'm just still not convinced, I mean havnt you heard people call Ken Griffey, Jr, Ken Griffey, hes still a Ken Griffey--Yankees10 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard him referred to as "Griffey" but I have to say almost every time I've heard the full "Ken Griffey", it's always followed by "Jr." Maybe that's changed lately, I don't know. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have, sometimes on TV, CBSSportsLine.com, and even when you type in Ken Griffey on google, its brings you to stuff about Griffey Jr and barely anything about his father--Yankees10 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's easy. His father didn't play during the Google Age. I've heard Griffey, Jr. referred to as "Junior Griffey" more often than I've heard him referred to as "Ken Griffey" with no Jr. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ShortcutEdit

I've reverted your change to Template:Shortcut. This wasn't discussed anywhere and the exact same change has already been reverted by a different person before. --- RockMFR 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean by having all talk pages have the same color so users know what templates can be used there, but I don't think many people are actually going to see this connection intuitively. Also, why is the color for the other namespaces being changed? --- RockMFR 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have copied this discussion to Template talk:Shortcut#Colours and added my comments there since I think this discussion needs input from more users.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DisputeEdit

Instead of wikilawyering me with a 3RR flag, why dont you answer my points on the hatnote talk page. -Zahd (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about to post a reply there. —David Levy 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Weasel at ANIEdit

Hi. I've opened a conversation about the situation at Template:Weasel, and specifically my decision to fully protect the article to encourage consensus, at the administrator's noticeboard. It can be found here. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to confirm votes that I hav already registered for you on that administrator's noticeboard. I am not sure of one abstention. BrewJay (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAEdit

Why are you moving featured articles and based on what discussion or consensus are you doing this? I won't be able to promote or archive FACs until this is sorted; please discuss at User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed. The discussion you cited in the edit summaries as a reason for the moves was inconclusive, and there was no activity in the last 7 months. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing, I see absolutely no consensus for this anywhere, not least in the discussion you cite??? Woody (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The main featured content page actually was moved to the portal namespace (because it's a reader-oriented portal, not an editor-oriented page). In addition, two of the other featured content pages already were in the portal namespace, so the previous setup (prior to my moves) was inconsistent and confusing. —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Raul654; I won't be able to promote/archive until this is sorted, and I've noted that Raul doesn't often post on Sundays, so we wait. Not happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. How does this affect your ability to promote/archive? —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't like to complicate messy or unclear situations, meaing I wait until it's resolved before adding to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't follow. All of the subpages can be automatically moved at the same time, so how would this have any effect on promotion and archiving? —David Levy 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't have admin tools, and I don't know what it takes to move and unmove these pages (over redirects), and since I'm the only non-admin who promotes/archives/demotes FAs, I won't add to these pages until it's sorted by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but you're addressing a nonexistent problem. —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably so, but since I'm ignorant of admin move tools, it's best for me to keep hands off until things are sorted. As I understand it from others who have tried (unsuccessfully, perhaps because I don't see the move tabs admins have), moving over a redirect is easier if the page hasn't been subsequently edited, but harder if there have been subsequent edits. That's my reasoning for hands off while I wait ... it may be faulty reasoning, based on my ignorance of admin tools, but it's safe :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that you didn't have to worry about the titles when performing these tasks, as any subsequent move would have included the pages in question. Even this, of course, has been rendered moot.  :-) —David Levy 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, you just moved about 200 pages, including some move-protected pages, without notice or discussion. (The referenced discussion ended January 2008). Next time please be careful with the "move subpages" box. Gimmetrow 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the page actually was moved and remained in its new location since then. That seems like consensus to me. —David Levy 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If the pages were already moved, you wouldn't have had to move them. But you did, including pages that were move-protected, without any notice or discussion on the pages in question. Had you bothered to ask, you might have been told why this was a problem. Gimmetrow 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the move from Wikipedia:Featured content to Portal:Featured content, which took place months and months ago without controversy.
To what problem do you refer? I've yet to see anyone cite a reason why the status quo is superior. —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Uh, regardless of whether that discussion had consensus or not, it's seven months old. That and this is an issue that should be discussed at length outside of that isolated discussion by the entire community. All those pages are move protected for a reason. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion in question was about moving Wikipedia:Featured content to Portal:Featured content. This move took place back then and was not reversed. Additionally, prior to my moves, two other featured content pages were located in the portal namespace, so we had a confusing, seemingly random mishmash. Why, in your opinion, does it make sense to leave some of these pages (but not others) in a namespace intended for editors instead of having all of them in a namespace intended for precisely this type of reader-oriented page? —David Levy 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care either way. If consensus comes up to support such a move, then I have no problem with it. The substance of the argument is irrelevant here though. I'm simply noting the fallacy in your logic that a seven month old discussion gives you carte blanche to move all of these pages that have 1) screwed up coding for several of these processes 2) no consensus outside of that isolated discussion to move to what you want 3) move protection. Does the notion occur to you that moving two hundred pages needs more discussion? sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Again, I cited that discussion as a reference to reason behind the move from Wikipedia:Featured content to Portal:Featured content, which occurred many months ago and wasn't reversed. How is that not indicative of consensus? Or are you suggesting that there is consensus to have three of the featured content pages in the portal namespace and the rest in the Wikipedia namespace?
2. I apologize for messing up coding, but I'm certain that it could have been fixed in a matter of moments.
3. Regarding the move protection, you aren't equating my moves to vandalism, are you? —David Levy 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Again, does it occur to you in the slightest that you need consensus outside of a localized discussion on a portal talk page that hardly anyone visits in order to move two hundred pages, many of which are among the most prominent in the Wikipedia space? That the move to Portal:Featured content wasn't reversed was because no one cared, and Wikipedia:Featured content is not very prominent. Wikipedia:Featured articles is very prominent and moving that with a grain of consensus on an isolated discussion is not appropriate. As for the coding, no, it cannot be fixed in a manner of moments. It involves fixing the coding on the bots that maintain that space, fixing thousands of redirects, and whatnot. As for the move protection, no I am not equating it to vandalism. The point is that if pages are move protected, you better have a damn good reason for moving them, and be backed up by a clear consensus that is visible to most of the community. In any case, this has basically been cleaned up. If you still want to pursue this (which I don't mind), open a discussion at WP:CENT. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1. I cited the discussion to point out the reason why the original move was performed back then. I based these moves on the fact that the page in question remained in place for all of these months without controversy. I'm taken aback by your claim that a page linked from the sidebar and the main page "is not very prominent."
2. Such bot code can easily be fixed, and you'll have to explain what redirects would have required repair. (The double redirects were to have been handled by the redirect fixer, of course.)
3. Obviously, I was mistaken in my belief that these moves were uncontroversial, and I have no intention of reinstating them. —David Levy 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There were four in Wikipedia space (articles, lists, topics, and pictures), and two in Portal space (portals and sounds). Regardless of the outcome, I'm surprised you would edit war over this, considering the amount of concern raised on your talk page and Raul's. Certainly, discussion would have prevented this confusion. Disappointed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Struck, my mistake and apologies (I thought it had been moved twice.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's quite all right. I mistakenly regarded these moves as uncontroversial and wouldn't have carried them out if I'd known otherwise (and of course, I have no intention of reverting). —David Levy 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies as well for any confusion ... I was preparing to promote/archive so I could enjoy the rest of my Sunday around the house and with my family, so this unannounced change did throw a loop into the planning for my day and cause some frustration. Discussion in advance helps :-) I don't have an opinion yet as to how it should be sorted; I rarely venture into Portals, so need to do some homework before forming an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, my apologies for the confusion. I obviously misread the situation, and you can rest assured that I will not be moving the pages again without explicit discussion leading to consensus, so please proceed with the promotion and archival.  :-) —David Levy 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages.David Levy 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Featured content is not very prominent. Wikipedia:Featured articles is very prominent and moving that with a grain of consensus on an isolated discussion is not appropriate." Why is Wikipedia:Featured articles more important than Wikipedia:Featured content? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, I agree though with David's sentiment that all Featured content pages should be in the same space (not sure which of portal or Wikipedia myself), but he should've sort consensus first. Never mind I guess. Deamon138 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Sephiroth wasn't referring to relative importance re status as much as prominence in terms of the place to hold a discussion that has the most traffic and would have been noticed by more editors. Obviously, several of us were caught completely unawares by this, but I don't think Seph meant to say FA was more important, just a more noticed discussion place. The Village Pump discussion solves that, so moot now anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm that makes sense I'd say, thanks. Regardless, I'm suprised that no fuss was created when those other pages were moved months ago. Deamon138 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Like, I suspect, many editors, I've never even been to those other pages (or any portal, for that matter :-) Perhaps some relative traffic numbers would shed light on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy sums up what I meant pretty well. =) sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As was just pointed out on Raul's talk page, Portal:Featured content is consistently one of the 100 most viewed pages on the site. So surely, the move to the portal namespace cannot have gone unnoticed. —David Levy 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The plot thickens... Deamon138 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the argument on Raul's talk page is that it gets high hits because it's linked on the mainpage, but it has definitely gone unnoticed by most editors in featured processes. The hits coming from the mainpage are probably unrelated to whether it's named a "portal" or something else. Discounting vandalism, it has about 25 talk page posts all year, indicating that most editors ignored it as I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, that reflects the fact that it requires very little editing. —David Levy 02:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but my experience tells me otherwise. The only people who edit/update WP:FA are Raul, Marskell, Joelito, me, and the mainpage bolding bot, but it still attracts many talk page queries and posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, heck, the mainpage bolding bot: that's another bot owner I have to notify of the discussion (Rick Block and GimmeBot also update FA regularly, for things like name changes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but isn't that because there are many related topics to discuss? WP:FC, conversely, is a largely static page, but it's one that's highly viewed, so it seemed reasonable to assume that many people had noticed the move since December.
Regardless, it's clear that I was mistaken in my belief that the moves would be uncontroversial, so the above doesn't really matter.  :-) —David Levy 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you meant well; you don't have to keep saying you were mistaken, and I'm sure no one faults you for the innocent move :-) And I admit I know little of portals, as I just don't visit them. In the case of the featured content portal, I do remember when it went up, and that I actively ignored it, as it seemed at the time to have very little relevance to editors or readers. Now, is there any chance you would believe me if I tell you that you might be dramatically wrong about 1b and 3? Are you really aware of and prepared to rewrite all that Gimmebot does or find someone who will? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly interested in learning of any reason(s) why Gimmebot would require a major rewrite. And actually, I do have a close friend with coding experience who might be able to help out. —David Levy 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not just coding experience; it's a dedicated commitment, and a very big one. And in the meantime, our articlehistory work is lost, and we will need immediately many editors to take over many mundane, time-consuming and difficult daily tasks across many processes. I don't think you're aware of what words like RichardF's have caused or what the toll will be; I know that's not your fault, and I know you meant well, but it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Ummm...do you possess specific knowledge that Gimmebot would require an extensive rewrite? I can't think of a reason why it would, but I'm 100% open to information to the contrary.
2. No one is suggesting that we reinstate the moves without first ensuring that the bots are ready to accommodate the new titles.
3. No offense, but you're really, really overreacting to Richard's comments. He said nothing intended to insult or degrade anyone. All of us are volunteers, and I wouldn't be remotely offended if someone noted that we have to put our readers' ability to use the site before my convenience; it's true. —David Levy 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image requestEdit

Hi, would it be at all possible for you to create a version of this icon using this image? The reason being that WP:FILM has recently adopted the latter image, and for the sake of consistency I would prefer to use a deviation of it in {{Future film}}. No worries if you can't, it's not a big deal. But there's no harm in asking! :)

Thanks for your time either way. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk pageEdit

The link no longer works. What were you referring to? Corvus cornixtalk 08:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's none of our bloody business why!" is incivil. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:G4TV.svg)Edit

  Thanks for uploading Image:G4TV.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrysler NeonEdit

Your contribution is needed here: Talk:Chrysler_Neon#Move_to_Chrysler_Neon.3F Netrat (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Track and fieldEdit

David, just a note that the point about the American majority is of course fully convincing. I'm afraid I'm sometimes a bit overzealous when it comes to anything I perceive as potential American systemic bias ("ASB"). Nevertheless, I was poking a solution I had already accepted rather than seriously challenging it. As sort of a (very lame, in hindsight) explanation, I was coming fresh off this. No point explaining how I came to make an association between the two situations. It's sometimes (although not here) hard to immediately distinguish true ASB from the real-world "American bias" that stems from the fact that Americans make up the majority of native speakers (metric system et.al). So, sorry for bothering you & have a nice one. user:Everyme 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WBZEdit

I noticed you moved the article at WBZ (AM) to WBZ, with a note that a two-item disambiguation page isn't necessary. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, particularly if one of the usages was an abbreviation or something that was less frequently used — in fact, Dravecky has been moving many of these cases to hatnotes as you've done here recently, when the disambiguation has been between a radio station and an airport using the same ICAO code, for example. However, for a situation where two radio or TV stations share the same base call sign, I think the disambiguation is not only necessary, it's almost essential.

I've just spent the last couple of months cleaning up incoming links to dab pages like these ones, to the tune of 6-7000 edits. In fact, WBZ would have been one of the pages that I cleaned. I can guarantee you that the radio station article will now gather other articles linking to it that should properly link to the TV station, and they won't be easy to spot and fix like they would be if they linked to a dab page. The offsetting cost is one extra click for someone who wants the radio station article and the same number of clicks for someone who wants the TV station article.

And I know, WP:Other stuff exists, but there are probably several hundred dab pages that are exactly like this one — disambiguating a radio and a TV station, or two radio stations. This would be one of the few outliers that's using a hatnote instead, and the other few using that format were on a list for me to tackle once I'm done cleaning up incoming links, and turn them into dab pages so that there's a consistent approach across the project.

Didn't want to revert without a discussion. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take ManhattanEdit

  Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Queen Anne.jpgEdit

Hi! The above file has the same name as one on commons. Would you mind deleting it? If you wanted to keep it, you could upload it under a different name or rename it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Last revertEdit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_Mini&curid=19769681&diff=246289412&oldid=246288542

I believe policy states it should remain what it was originally. I may be mistaken

Thanks CompuHacker (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008Edit

  In a recent edit to the page MacBook, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 16:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I reverted another editor's changes from American English to British English (across numerous Apple-related articles), and I directed him/her to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English in one of the edit summaries and on his/her talk page. —David Levy 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I simply made a note about Wikipedia guidelines on the talk page of anyone involved in the minor edit wars over English spellings. No harm done or intended. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I intervened to counter the behavior that the template warns about, and I even linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English on Darkshark0159's talk page (and you posted the warning template there, directly below my note, before you posted it here). Why was it necessary to inform me of a guideline that I clearly was familiar with and attempting to enforce? —David Levy 18:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I quickly alerted everyone involved of Wikipedia guidelines and wasn't paying attention to who was right or wrong since that's POV. You of all people should appreciate that a friendly notice, like the one I gave to everyone involved was sensible. I don't have time to check who's an admin or on "the right said". I hope we can get past this since it's not an issue I care to discuss any further. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to Jojhutton's complaint, you noted that you don't like "taking a point of view," and I now understand that you posted the template indiscriminately, but you need to realize that that it's a warning message that conveys a determination of inappropriate conduct. It's intended to be posted to the talk page someone who has engaged in the behavior described (something very quickly and easily determined), not the talk pages of "everyone" whose name appears in an edit history. There's a major distinction between taking someone's side (which is what I assume you meant by "taking a point of view") and simply paying attention to what has occurred. No offense, but if you can't be bothered to do the latter (or even to notice that someone already has noted the relevant guideline on the talk page belonging to one of the other users, directly above where you duplicated the link), you probably shouldn't be templating people. —David Levy 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was a sensible precaution to attempt to avert an edit war (which apparently didn't work). Nja247 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Symbol_comment_vote_20px.png listed for deletionEdit

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Symbol_comment_vote_20px.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you can delete it your self, author request. Thank you!--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the image's author; I provided almost none of the file's substantial content. —David Levy 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
True, but by uploading that version of the image, you were the only one who made substantial edits to that image. So G7 probably still applied. Oh well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I prefer to err on the side of caution, but I obviously don't object to the deletion (and certainly don't advocate needless bureaucracy). So unless someone objects (which I doubt will occur), I'd say that the outcome is fine. —David Levy 04:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanked the pageEdit

"←​Blanked the page" should be "←​Blanked page". The reason I suggest this is because it makes it inconsistent with "Redirected page to...". Otherwise, "Redirected page to..." should be changed to "Redirected the page to". -- IRP 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC), modified 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you reply? Will you at least tell me why you may think it should stay as it is? -- IRP 20:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for the delay. I'll explain why the status quo makes sense:
"Blanked page" could be interpreted as a noun (with "blanked" as a modifier). "Blanked the page" lacks this ambiguity.
"Redirected page to" also lacks such ambiguity, and adding "the" (plus an additional space) would reduce the number of available characters (used to display the title) by four. —David Levy 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikipedialangEdit

{{editprotected}}
Could you add the interwiki link [[th:แม่แบบ:วิกิพีเดียในภาษาอื่น]] to {{Wikipedialang}}, Thank you. -- Portalian 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image talk:Wheatley Jan 2008 cropped.jpgEdit

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image talk:Wheatley Jan 2008 cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spitfire19 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BrewhahaEdit

I filed a WP:AN report regarding the above user, with whom I know you've had some problematic interaction. If you'd care to comment, it can be found here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesignEdit

What a mess, huh? I've posted a comment outlining an "ideas, not designs" approach on the noticeboard. Hopefully we'll see a good design come out of this (the current MP could use some tweaks, but doesn't need an overhaul). But it transcends how best to present a ton of information - this is an issue that strikes at the heart of Wikipedia's vision and dream. I think you need some thanks and recognition

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For fighting for transparency, cooperation, and good ideas, and attacking unfairness without indicting the user or sounding arrogant during the 2008 Main Page redesign. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


PS: It's an advance payment: we still need to make sure something proper actually gets done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The emerging, unwritten, consensus is to ignore the results of the election (though not fully discard the designs) and use the Goal header system to brainstorm. ChyranandChloe has asked you to do this repeatedly; I think you could use some credit as an active, positive contributor instead of negative, "you're doing this wrong" cynic. I think it's a process that we can be proud to advertise on the watchlists (once we go through less drastic channels.) Besides, I want your ideas.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. You know how you've been talking about "initiat[ing] a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate"? That's exactly what's going on here, although we never formally said, "okay, this is what we're doing," but CaC has "advocated" it and began it by bringing up ideas from the very beginning; I created a header system to keep everything organized; and Pretzels has joined in. This is exactly the process you wanted, so take part - and get others to do so, too. That was the idea of the watchlists; I'm going to prepare a press release for the Signpost (on the talk page where people can comment, of course.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about watchlists. As far as the official status of the poll, I feel like the results have discarded, but the designs have been retained for inspiration and ideas later on. It's a touchy subject - CaC has rebounded surprisingly well while Jennavecia seems upset. Considering I just apologized to her, I don't want to officially declare the poll dead. Still, it needs to be done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Given the number of people who edit wikipedia we are never going to decide on one main page which everybody likes. Why not keep the front page as standard but allow a new preferences option where the editor has the choice to select his/her main page preference? So when I go into "My preferences" and select "Skin" there should not only be the option for overall skin type but underneath a "Main page skin" choice which has 5 or so options. This way everybody wins and those editors who loathe the front page can select which they want without having to worry about coding it in their monobooks as in the past.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded to Dr. Blofeld on the design page - David: I know you have a lot of criticism about the way that the poll was conducted, and I'm trying to lead everyone to resolution, which has to happen before this goes much further. But again, the Goals section is "initiat[ing] a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate". (You said that!) How that unified design will be formatted, we're not yet sure. But it's the sort of discussion you've been pushing for, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not participating.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New feature suggestionEdit

Can you add a "redmove" feature to Wikipedia? A redmove is my idea to where you can move a page without the old page redirecting to it. It will just be a complete move, and the old page would not be a redirect page. It would not be deletion, but it would just be a feature that allows you to move pages around on Wikipedia the same way they are moved around on Wiktionary. -- IRP 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto Move failsEdit

... needs your admin tools... I'd justified "United Paramount Network is a formal entity, and should not have been created as a colloquialism, no matter how trendy the name.

  • Article is currently at UPN...
  • Your name is last in the recorded log (JAN 2007) when I went to move it, which I consider a no brainer. So do some of your kung-fu admin shit and swap the article and redirects!

Thanks, // FrankB 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this user please 75.80.47.238Edit

75.80.47.238

They've made covert vandal edits, but no one has really done anything about it. Moreover, the material they add is complete garbage...not suitable quality for this site. I would suggest you block them for a time period to get the point across.

Thanks, 75.83.26.0 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The most recent contributions made anonymously from this IP address do not appear to be vandalistic, and the previous edits likely were performed by different individuals. —David Levy 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No replyEdit

Please reply at User_talk:David_Levy#New_feature_suggestion↑↑ -- IRP 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pepsi Max.jpg)Edit

  Thanks for uploading Image:Pepsi Max.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Children In PiecesEdit

Hey I just re-deleted this page as I saw you recreated it, but I'm wondering if maybe you were in the middle of doing something particular here? If so, sorry about that - I thought that the content was already merged per the AfD discussion. - eo (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the edits, not the editorEdit

Perhaps, if I could trouble you to do so, you could make something more of an effort to not turn a discussion disagreement into something more pointedly personal? Commenting on your assessment of my behavior ("I pointed out flawed comprehension on the part of someone who has continually scrutinized and sought to micromanage others' posts, coming across as arrogant and condescending in the process (though I assume that this isn't your intention). This is why I was reluctant to enter the discussion, and it wouldn't surprise me if others have steered clear or been driven away for the same reason.") is not good faith, David, and I do not appreciate the personal attack. We can - and do disagree in this instance. If I disagree with folk who demand that I bring citations to defend my argument, I expect that, when I do so, they offer citations to appropriately negate my arguments. You haven't done that, despite my repeated requests that you do so, You chose instead to attack me. You've been here long enough to see the problem with that, right?
I thought that by coming here and pointing out my concern over your post, that you might wish to reconsider the tone of both your most recent post and your future posts, as I found it to be rather off-putting. I am not asking you to redact/refactor it to be more polite, but I would like you to bear in mind that I have been nothing if not civil and professional in my arguments. Could you please be more polite, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticising someone's behavior is not a personal attack. (If it were, you would have just committed a personal attack above.) I'm puzzled by your assertion that doing so is "not good faith." To what dishonest or malicious motive do you attribute my statements?
Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, I am focusing on the edits (not the editor). I was very careful to state that your comments make you come across in a negative light, and I even noted my assumption that this is unintentional on your part. I pass no judgement regarding what type of person you are, other than to assume that you're a lovely individual in real life. But your posts to that page don't convey that and aren't conducive to amiable discourse. If you cannot accept that as constructive criticism, I don't know how to proceed.
We've already established that you've requested citations for claims that I haven't made, and I don't even know how to address your latest request beyond attempting to confirm that I've accurately interpreted it.
I also find it downright startling that you labeled my criticisms of your tone a "personal attack" and "not good faith" and then cited these comments as the basis for criticising my tone. Obviously, yours has not come across to me as "civil and professional" or "polite," but you seem to find that notion so inconceivable that any such claim could only be a bad-faith personal attack against you. —David Levy 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Do I really need to point instances of your unpleasant assumptions, David? Maybe before asking me to do so, maybe re-read your post and tell me how you would react were you the subject of the same post. It was unfriendly. If I choose not to accept your point of view, it doesn't make me a a bad person, any more than you not accepting my point of view renders you an utter dolt. Seriously - you don't see how your post was unfriendly and a bit attacky? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't. While doubtlessly "unpleasant" to read, my criticisms of your comments are no more a "personal attack" than your criticisms of my comments are. At no point have I asserted that you aren't entitled to disagree with me or that you're a "bad person" for doing so.
I do want you to explain why you think that I've acted in bad faith. What dishonest or malicious motive do you believe that I possess? —David Levy 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't see the problem with your post, and prefer to spend oodles f time talking about how I am just wrong, wrong wrong, I am unsure how pointing out your error is going to serve any possible good outcome, aside from unpleasantness.
And yeah, I've pulled the thread from the article that you moved over to the ARTICLE DISCUSSION page. I came here with my concerns because I thought you might have just been having a bad day or something. Clearly, your issues with me fairly override this one article, considering your willingness to open a personality discussion and bring it back into article discussion, Maybe stop doing that, I hear that you admins take a fairly dim view of that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't see the problem with your post, and prefer to spend oodles f time talking about how I am just wrong, wrong wrong, I am unsure how pointing out your error is going to serve any possible good outcome, aside from unpleasantness.
So...when I criticise your behavior, it's a bad-faith personal attack. But when you criticise my behavior, it's "pointing out [my] error." Do I have that straight?
And yeah, I've pulled the thread from the article that you moved over to the ARTICLE DISCUSSION page. I came here with my concerns because I thought you might have just been having a bad day or something.
And I sincerely appreciated the division...until you raised exactly the same issue on the article's talk page (without acknowledging that it already had been raised here or that I'd already addressed your points).
Now you're complaining because I responded by showing other editors what already had been said regarding an issue that you raised on the article's talk page?
Clearly, your issues with me fairly override this one article, considering your willingness to open a personality discussion and bring it back into article discussion,
...except for the fact that I've explicitly noted that I wasn't referring to your personality and the fact that you brought the above matter to the article's talk page.
Maybe stop doing that, I hear that you admins take a fairly dim view of that.
Of what? Responding to a post by copying and pasting an existing thread between the same participants regarding the same subject? —David Levy 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's sort this out here, Dave, as I am not willing to back and forth the dramaz on the article discussion page. You say you don't have the foggiest idea where I arrived at the possibility that you were making some bad faith and attack-y comments. Since you were unwilling or unable to see their effect, allow me to point a few out to you:

  • "I pointed out flawed comprehension on the part of someone who has continually scrutinized and sought to micromanage others' posts, coming across as arrogant and condescending in the process"
  • You seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting perceptions that extend beyond the present.
  • Are you aware of how rude and dismissive such comments come across?
  • I will not allow you to dictate the course of the conversation
  • you seem inclined to overrule our opinions

...and I don't need to tell you how disruptive it is to port over talk page content relating to interpersonal behavior between editors, and not the article. Attempting to poison the well - as your action could very easily be interpreted as attempting to do - was kind of a cheap shot and bordered on disruptive. Frankly, its shit like that that render the other points that might have been addressed either superfluous or simply invisible, mired as they are in all the personal bs. Casting negative associations on the actions of another editor is unfriendly and antagonistic. That is what I am asking you to stop doing, as it distracts from the matter at hand. I don't mind discussing the matter with you, but I am not going to respond to having every nuance of my posts treated as if I had just offered a racial epithet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I see a list of criticisms. I don't see any personal attacks, though I understand how the first item might come across that way with the following text ("though I assume that this isn't your intention") omitted for some reason.
I certainly don't know why you believe that it's okay for you to tell me that my comments seem rude, but it's not okay for me to tell you that your comments seem rude.
2. Again, you transferred the interpersonal issue to the article's talk page by re-raising it there in a manner that created the false appearance that you were doing so for the first time (when in fact, I already had addressed the same points here). Let me be perfectly clear in stating that I am not accusing you of intentionally misleading anyone, but my sole reason for copying and pasting the text was to set the record straight. I'm flabbergasted by your continual assertion (and resultant outrage) that I introduced the topic to the article's talk page. I would have gladly left it here, had you allowed that. But instead, you posted the following on the article's talk page:
I am going to point out that I would prefer that you focus on the edits and not the editor, David. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; I would prefer if you would attempt to confine that disagreement to exclude your ascribing motives or personality flaws of me from your posts. Stick to the talking points, so to speak. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; you are not allowed to attack me personally. Maybe you could knock that off, please.
I was asked to bring citations to support the position that the two mythical characters were used interchangeably, and that they were considered synonymous because of that interchangeability. I did so. However, when I in turn asked for others to provide citations to defend a different opinion, I was accused of arrogance, condescension and micromanagement? Yeah, that's fair, civil and professional.
Please explain how that substantially differs from the message that you posted above (and that I'd already addressed).
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to cite the dishonest or malicious motive behind my alleged bad-faith conduct. —David Levy 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:#1 - I am glad you are able to see that at least one of the comments was easy to interpret as an attack. I omitted the bit about how you assume that it wasn't my intention - if you didn't mean to ever bring it up, the question then becomes, why did you bring it up at all?
Re:#2 I addressed briefly the problem there, as it tended to poison the well of good faith. I ddn't spend forever on it, and was interested in resolving the friction here, where it belongs. The article discussion is not the place to hash out personality clashes. I've been in enough of those to know that any win is at best pyrrhic; who the fuck cares who won an argument if the end result is two guys that now despise each other and are determined to be on their guard the next time they interact? The best course of action is to either try to resolve the problem outside of the article or - actually, that's the only course of action. Methods of pursuing it outside of the article and article discussion are varied, so long as the drama doesn't spread to the article or discussion itself - as it had in this case. I chose to largely disengage from you, as I felt attacked and felt that, because you either did not know you had done so or "did not know" you had done so, there was no point in trying to communicate at all with you.
How my posts differs from yours is that mine were in response to being attacked without provocation. To my mind, you and I had been interacting politely - disagreeing, but doing so politely. I remember being quite pleased that someone who I respected a lot was choosing to discuss the merge with me. It then appeared (to me) that you lost your patience at being disagreed with after your second post, and began to disparage my opinion and my defense of that opinion.
I had not done anything to precipitate the attack. While I indeed suggested that Otter's argument about doing a succession of rather silly merges - when he explicitly had said that he opposed any merge of the two articles - was something of a straw man argument, it was such, though Otter may have been using dramatic license and not a cynical method of debate.
Lastly, I have noticed that you've used the term "dishonest or malicious motive" in regards to my questioning your comments and the presumption of a lack of good faith inherent within them. I am not sure where I ever accused you of being malicious or dishonest (or ever having used those words in Wikipedia before towards anyone) - like I said, prior to this disagreement, I had nothing but respect for you. I had seen the same sort of behavior from since-blocked or -banned trolls, and I guess that, in my extreme disappointment at your behavior, I responded somewhat in kind. To say I wish that I hadn't is an understatement, but I am not sure it wasn't a natural reaction to your comments, Dave. You had really lost a lot of good faith and respect from me with that one post. When your subsequent posts didn't improve in tone, I felt I could either waste copious amounts of time responding to your posts in an inappropriate venue for such, or simply disengage. I decided that I should try the latter; you had apparently already made up your mind about my motives and intent, and nothing I could say would change that.
You wanted reasons; there they are, unvarnished and raw. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you are able to see that at least one of the comments was easy to interpret as an attack.
No, I said that I see how it might be interpreted as one with a key portion of the text omitted (as you pasted it above).
I omitted the bit about how you assume that it wasn't my intention -
Yes, why did you do that?
if you didn't mean to ever bring it up, the question then becomes, why did you bring it up at all?
I meant to bring it up. As I've repeatedly explained, I was pointing out that your choice of words made you come across in a manner that I assumed you didn't intend to. I brought this to your attention in the hope that you would recognize the disparity and adjust your tone accordingly. I did not attribute the negative characteristics to your personality, and while misunderstandings can and do occur, my first explanation of this fact should have resolved any confusion.
I addressed briefly the problem there,
You spent two paragraphs on it, thereby essentially duplicating the message that you posted here. You did so after I'd already explained to you that my comments weren't intended as personal attacks.
as it tended to poison the well of good faith.
Then why did you post it there at all? For the record, I perceived no well-poisoning (on your part or mine). But if it seemed that way to you, why did you "point out" the perceived personal attacks on the article's talk page twenty minutes after we'd thoroughly discussed the matter above (with no indication that any such discussion had occurred)?
I ddn't spend forever on it, and was interested in resolving the friction here, where it belongs.
Then why did you transfer the topic to the article's talk page (instead of accepting my explanation that the comments in question weren't intended as personal attacks)?
The article discussion is not the place to hash out personality clashes. I've been in enough of those to know that any win is at best pyrrhic; who the fuck cares who won an argument if the end result is two guys that now despise each other and are determined to be on their guard the next time they interact?
I don't despise you, and I hope that the feeling is mutual.
The best course of action is to either try to resolve the problem outside of the article or - actually, that's the only course of action.
And that's precisely what I attempted to do. But when you duplicated your complaints on the article's talk page, I saw nothing "disruptive" about duplicating my pre-existing response there.
How my posts differs from yours is that mine were in response to being attacked without provocation.
They're in response to that perception on your part. And I have absolutely no doubt that you truly interpreted my comments as personal attacks. But if my sincere explanation that they weren't intended as personal attacks isn't good enough, I don't know what else to try.
To my mind, you and I had been interacting politely - disagreeing, but doing so politely. I remember being quite pleased that someone who I respected a lot was choosing to discuss the merge with me. It then appeared (to me) that you lost your patience at being disagreed with after your second post, and began to disparage my opinion and my defense of that opinion.
I'm glad to see the above use of the phrase "to me" (meaning you), as it appears to indicate awareness of the fact that your perception might not have been accurate (as no one's is 100% of the time).
I never object to being disagreed with. I object to the manner in which you've expressed your disagreement (all the while noting my assumption that you're acting in good faith). As I've stated from the beginning, I don't think that you intend be rude or dismissive; I think that you unintentionally express yourself in a manner that comes across that way. That isn't a personal attack, and I'm sorry if you view it as such.
I had not done anything to precipitate the attack.
As I've stated on many occasions, nothing justifies a personal attack. That's why I didn't commit one. I'm fully aware of the fact that you perceived my comments as a personal attack, but that isn't how they were intended. I've been quite clear in explaining this.
While I indeed suggested that Otter's argument about doing a succession of rather silly merges - when he explicitly had said that he opposed any merge of the two articles - was something of a straw man argument, it was such, though Otter may have been using dramatic license and not a cynical method of debate.
A straw man argument is based upon the creation and refutation of a position attributed to (but not actually held by) one's opponent. I don't see how OtterSmith's message remotely fits that description. There's nothing inappropriate about opposing X while simultaneously expressing a preferred course of action should X occur.
Lastly, I have noticed that you've used the term "dishonest or malicious motive" in regards to my questioning your comments and the presumption of a lack of good faith inherent within them. I am not sure where I ever accused you of being malicious or dishonest (or ever having used those words in Wikipedia before towards anyone)
Do you know what the term "bad faith" means? By definition, a claim that I have acted in bad faith is a claim that said conduct has arisen from a dishonest or malicious motive.
like I said, prior to this disagreement, I had nothing but respect for you. I had seen the same sort of behavior from since-blocked or -banned trolls, and I guess that, in my extreme disappointment at your behavior, I responded somewhat in kind. To say I wish that I hadn't is an understatement, but I am not sure it wasn't a natural reaction to your comments, Dave. You had really lost a lot of good faith and respect from me with that one post.
I lost good faith from you? How are you using the term "good faith"? I'm beginning to suspect that you really weren't familiar with its meaning, as I doubt that you intended to state that you've stopped acting in good faith.
To be clear, this is not an insult. It's an attempt to discover whether much of this conflict has stemmed from a simple linguistic misunderstanding.
When your subsequent posts didn't improve in tone, I felt I could either waste copious amounts of time responding to your posts in an inappropriate venue for such, or simply disengage. I decided that I should try the latter; you had apparently already made up your mind about my motives and intent, and nothing I could say would change that.
This, on the other hand, baffles me. How many times must I explicitly state that I do not question your motives and intent? —David Levy 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, again, this is where - when only a core nugget of disagreement exists - that it gets lost in a wash of extraneous material. As I haven't interacted with you before on this level, I'm not sure if its your practice to dissect each post, sentence by sentence. It seems that by doing so you have missed the overall meaning of the post. While it might be the case that most of this present conflict stems from semantics, there appears to be - and I know you've already denied this - at least the perception to assume less than the best intent of my post.
Your observations as to my intent, crystallized in the specific instances bulleted above, are inaccurate. If you are unwilling to concede the possibility that you might have been incorrect in offering them in that way, then this process of discussion is pretty much going to crash and burn. Interpretation is as much a part of quality of medium as it is of form and observation; how you craft what you choose to say affects how people are gong to react to it. A crude example would be to say "I'm sure you aren't a pedophile, but why do you edit children's articles". It says one thing on its face which is certainly unmatched by its subtext. Again, this is a crude example, but serves to explain that - in the case of your posts - you deviated from logic argument presented in the article discussion and focused instead upon your interpretation as to the intent of the editor. Again, the bulleted points above express the key points where I felt the negative evaluation of me (and not the argument), but it presented a subtext which I saw as an attack. You may not have intended it, but I assure you, it came across that way. I am confident I am not the only user who felt it to be an attack on me, and not my argument. As you noted in your most recent article discussion post, a negative connotation forces you to respond thereby not allowing it "to stand". I feel precisely the same way, David. You can protest from now 'til the cows come home that you didn't intend that, but until you recognize the possibility that your post(s) were subject to persons just as intelligent as yourself, this discussion will go nowhere. I am too busy to waste my time on a discussion where the other party is either unable or unwilling to admit that they might have fucked up.
So, how you choose to address this problem is largely up to you. You can - again - dissect every sentence of my post, pointing out how my entire process of reasoning is wrong, or you can admit to the possibility that the quality of your posts rendered them open to defensive criticism. If its the former, I am afraid we are done talking. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As I haven't interacted with you before on this level, I'm not sure if its your practice to dissect each post, sentence by sentence.
I commonly quote and respond to individual comments when I believe that a lump reply would be less clear.
It seems that by doing so you have missed the overall meaning of the post.
How so?
While it might be the case that most of this present conflict stems from semantics, there appears to be - and I know you've already denied this - at least the perception to assume less than the best intent of my post.
There truly isn't. From the very beginning, I've assumed nothing other than good faith on your part. I'm sorry that you don't believe me.
Your observations as to my intent, crystallized in the specific instances bulleted above, are inaccurate.
To what comments are you referring? When, apart from my assumptions of good faith on your part, have I commented on your intent?
If you are unwilling to concede the possibility that you might have been incorrect in offering them in that way, then this process of discussion is pretty much going to crash and burn.
I fully acknowledge that you perceived the comments in question as personal attacks, and I unreservedly apologize for any and all offense caused by them.
Are you willing to concede the possibility that you might have offered some of your merger comments in a less-than-ideal manner?
Interpretation is as much a part of quality of medium as it is of form and observation; how you craft what you choose to say affects how people are gong to react to it.
Yes, and this disagreement began when I opined that some of your comments were likely to be interpreted in a negative light (while explicitly noting my assumption that they weren't intended to be). For whatever reason, you interpreted this as commentary on you, and I immediately clarified that I was referring strictly to your posts' tone and had not passed any personal judgement (aside from assuming that you're a lovely person). Why wasn't that the end of it?
A crude example would be to say "I'm sure you aren't a pedophile, but why do you edit children's articles". It says one thing on its face which is certainly unmatched by its subtext.
That isn't a fair analogy, as the initial statement ("I'm sure you aren't a pedophile") is a non sequitur; there's no reason—independent of the statement itself—for anyone to arrive at such a conclusion.
Conversely, there's nothing illogical about stating that someone's comments seem rude but you trust that they aren't intended to be.
What frustrates me is that you've continually complained about this while simultaneously pointing out how rude my comments seemed. And not only have you not appended notation indicating the assumption of good faith, but you've explicitly accused me of acting in bad faith.
If it's okay for you to express your opinion that my comments seemed rude (and I agree that it is okay for you to do that, minus the unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith), why was it not okay for me to do the same thing (while explicitly expressing the assumption of good faith)?
Again, this is a crude example, but serves to explain that - in the case of your posts - you deviated from logic argument presented in the article discussion and focused instead upon your interpretation as to the intent of the editor.
No, I really didn't. And if stating (both at the time and now) that I wasn't questioning your intent isn't good enough, it's because you regard me as a liar.
You're questioning my intent by accusing me of questioning your intent.
Again, the bulleted points above express the key points where I felt the negative evaluation of me (and not the argument), but it presented a subtext which I saw as an attack.
Again, I unreservedly apologize for composing my messages in a manner that came across to you as a personal attack. But I won't apologize for personally attacking you, as that isn't what I did.
You may not have intended it, but I assure you, it came across that way.
And I've repeatedly acknowledged that it did. To do otherwise would be to assume bad faith on your part (because it would mean that you were lying). And I don't think for a second that you're lying.
Thank you for acknowledging that I "may not have intended it," but my simple statement that I didn't should have sufficed.
Just last week, I interpreted this edit as an attack and responded accordingly. When the other editor informed me that the edit wasn't intended as an attack, I apologized for the misunderstanding and moved on. I did so despite the fact that I haven't always gotten along with that editor (whereas I don't recall any history between you and me). I'm disappointed that you aren't willing to take my word for it when I tell you that I wasn't trying to attack you, particularly given by willingness to assume 100% honesty on your part.
I am confident I am not the only user who felt it to be an attack on me, and not my argument.
I'm confident that I'm not the only user who has taken issue with your posts' tone. One has even questioned whether you deserve the assumption of good faith, which is something that I haven't done.
I am too busy to waste my time on a discussion where the other party is either unable or unwilling to admit that they might have fucked up.
Ditto. —David Levy 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Either I was unclear, or you simply chose to ignore my post. I urge you to read the last paragraph of that all over again. I specifically asked you to not dissect my posts, and you chose to bypass that request. Well, this is your talk page; do what you want. If you say that you weren't trying to be rude, then I shall accept that you didn't mean to be, just as you apparently accept that I wasn't. Let's both just say mea culpa and walk away, then. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Either I was unclear, or you simply chose to ignore my post. I urge you to read the last paragraph of that all over again. I specifically asked you to not dissect my posts, and you chose to bypass that request.
I'm sorry that you dislike my communication style, but I know of no better way to adequately address multi-topic messages.
If you say that you weren't trying to be rude, then I shall accept that you didn't mean to be, just as you apparently accept that I wasn't. Let's both just say mea culpa and walk away, then.
Absolutely. Thank you. —David Levy 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: BoltEdit

How about treating Bolt (film) as a disambiguation page? I'd be happy to clean up the Disney-related links to point to Bolt (2008 film). —Erik (talkcontrib) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FYIEdit

I reversed your page protection of User talk:Charitwo per WP:USER#Use of page protection for user pages. I don't want to start a wheel war, but I just can't see how protection of a user's talk page at their request simply so they won't see the orange bar can be productive or helpful in any way. If you would like to discuss it, please let me know and I will be happy to! Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you placed too much emphasis on the latter half of the explanation "to allow editors to leave messages for this user without triggering the notification banner." I protected the talk page (with the link to the message page) not at Charitwo's request, but to force him/her to stop prohibiting people from communicating with him/her (which he/she insisted on doing because of the orange bar). If Charitwo is willing to accept messages on his/her talk page, that's fine. —David Levy 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I could do without the orange bar (and still do), I was content with using my watchlist to check the now deleted (which I DID NOT request, thanks Ioeth for controversially deleting talk page message history [now I have no idea who really left what message and when]) User talk:Charitwo/Messages. Since this was reversed, I'll have to find some CSS to permanetely suppress the display of the orange bar. --Charitwo (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you reply?Edit

See User_talk:David_Levy#New_feature_suggestion↑↑, please. -- IRP 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN death proposalEdit

Hello,

I'm wondering what to do about Main Page/ITN death proposal. This really does not belong in the article space; would you like to move it to your userspace instead, or should we move it to the Wikipedia space? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten about that page. Thanks for reminding me! I've moved it to my userspace and deleted the redirect. —David Levy 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

MPRP NoticeEdit

I change my mind, you have a lot going on your talk. So let's go to mine (unless you like it here). ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wiki.pngEdit

I noticed you optimised it one more step than anyone else had. What do you reccomend as the best crusher? I use pngout, pngcrush, advpng, optipng and pngoptimiser, but none seem to be able to reach the level of compression attained. What's your secret? :P neuro(talk) 12:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What switches do you use for pngout? I always -brute, is there a better way? neuro(talk) 13:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! :) neuro(talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WhoopsEdit

Thanks for catching that and fixing it for me. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order?Edit

I'm sorry, doesn't "App Store" come before "Apple"? I'm pretty sure spaces come before characters in alphabetic lists. Let me test this out with Category:Test. This page should show up before, not after, User:Daniel48 when using "User:D z" as the sorting sequence. According to WP:ALPH spaces come before all other characters as well. Of course, this assumes we are using "App" as its own word and not as an abbreviation for "Application". Am I missing something? ~ PaulT+/C 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

;-)Edit

Not the /best/ edit summary ever; I apologize :-) Perhaps we can discuss the merit of whether "policy shortcut" is necessary or preferred. A shortcut is a shortcut is a shortcut, imo, and adding the officious policy bit is potentially off-putting to newcomers and folks who - when linking to a policy via a shortcut - are trying to stress that this is policy, policy, policy; of course, it's on a policy page to begin with. I'm just out to minimize potentially Problematic Editors from unconsciously linking officiousness with common sense.

If that made any sense whatsoever :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) It was a bit pointy, I admit, but at least it gets BRD going :-D

Indeed. But my argument is that what ever gets a shortcut is probably worth following, regardless of whether it be on a policy page or guideline (etc). For stupid things that get shortcuts, then we kill the shortcut...
OK, so there's a lot of problems inherent in my lil solution. I'll move along now ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

Dear David Levy,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: In the News stuffEdit

Hey, sorry for the long delay in replying!

Anyway, no, it wasn't really discussed aside from between myself and another editor who were talking about balancing the main page layout (given that the main page is the most-viewed page on Wikipedia, I think you can figure out how this is relevant to the readership :P). My source would be primarily some polling I did here and there, though by no means is that a conclusive statement; that's just all we know for now.

Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New Wikibooks logo for main pageEdit

Hi. Care to scale-down File:Wikibooks-logo.svg and replace the current one on Template:WikipediaSister? It is their new logo and I noticed you did some/all of the other ones. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In promoteEdit

The diffrence between {{proposed}} and {{promote}} is of two things: History and the status afterwards. A proposal page is created to demonstrate a proposal, a page with promote has already existed, usually as an essay or information page. And also after a proposal page fails to gain consensus, {{Failed}} is usually added to the top, basically making the page historical, but for promotion after failure it can simply go back to an essay or information page, as it had been.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!Edit

  New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza


Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
Last: 01//2008
This box: view  talk  edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages containing incorrect parametersEdit

On July 23, 2008 you created Category:Wikipedia pages containing incorrect parameters and set Template:Essay to use it. You removed the code from Template:Essay on September 1, 2008. To your knowledge is this category still used by any templates? --Pascal666 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Question from a new user about File:Wiki.pngEdit

User_talk:Ikip#Question and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller_Wikipedia_Logo_files maybe you can help User:Smallman12q? Thank you. Ikip (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for uploading them!Smallman12q (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area
Last: 01/18/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Atari MovesEdit

David, just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the Atari, Atari Inc, and Atari Inc. (infogrames subsidiary) links. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-8Edit

Please refrain from mocking other users. Thanks. —David Levy 08:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Other users should refrain from getting so worked up over harmless jokes. Thanks. tfeSil (aktl) 08:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I have to disagree with you on your main point. Jokes which are only visible to administrators are less harmful than editor-facing ones. No non-admin is going to see the editnotice-8, because they can't edit the interface. I really don't think there was anything wrong with the edit.
I will concede that the tagline and common.css edits were unhelpful.
The proposal on April Fools' Day jokes (which was at Wikipedia:Pranking) was rejected.
Also, I think I'm going to change the tagline to "From Wikipedia, the phree encyclopedia". Just so you know. flSiet (aklt) 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1. You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that because MediaWiki:Editnotice-8 is unlikely to be viewed by non-administrators, it is not the type of system message that we're particularly worried about. (Again, your edit was inappropriate primarily because it mocked another user, which should not occur on any page). By "editor-facing pages," I'm referring to all pages not typically viewed by non-editing readers (including those viewed only by administrators, who obviously are editors).
2. I'm not referring to that proposal. I'm referring to the ordinary discussions in which it was widely agreed that while harmless April foolery should be tolerated/embraced, messing with the system messages is going too far.
3. I don't know whether you're serious about the tagline. If you are, please be advised that this vandalism may result in a block. If you're only kidding, disregard the warning. —David Levy 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. Fair enough on your clarification of "editor-facing pages". On the other point, I think you're just being silly and if Protonk was genuinely offended and told me so, I would apologize.
  2. [citation needed]
  3. Again, that is causing an unnecessary clampdown on the fun and frivolity customarily associated with today. In Ireland, we'd call you a damp rag, or "no fun", or something. I'm not going to make that change because I don't want to risk a wheel war, not because I'm concerned about your feelings on it :)
So live a little! flSiet (aklt) 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm...it would have been nice if you had have discussed your concerns on the Main Page talk page, given there was an existing consensus of established Wikipedians who thought it was acceptable. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BarnstarEdit

Hi.

Could you design a barnstar called "The Helping Barnstar" please? Use any image you would like and notify me ASAP when you are done. Carabera (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent revertEdit

Regarding this revert, I inserted bold and colored text because a lot of editors miss the important facts and seem to treat some essays as policies or guidelines. One example includes Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. You may or may not have noticed that many editors treat it as a policy. I added red bold text to draw the attention of those people and they will realize that they were incorrect. Let me know if you still disagree. -- IRP 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSDEdit

Agreed with your edits to the dropdown list, and I changed CSD to match. Thanks! (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you beat me by a few seconds. I also changed a few other instances of "blatant."  :-) —David Levy 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your message on my talkEdit

I see the point you are making concerning vandalism vs improper or poorly constructed edits. I would like to say, not in defense of my revert but explanation, I noticed that Majorly had just reverted the same editor and the editor was was not adding to their own post. It looked like graffiti to me. Of course, one can never be too careful so I will endeavor to be more careful. Thanks for the heads up. Tiderolls 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GrantEdit

Would it be appropriate for the CheckUser request to proceed? It was stopped in the first place because it wasn't need per WP:DUCK, but now maybe it isn't so ducky. Grsz11 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I still really don't get it. Meatpuppets can be blocked too, no? Grsz11 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the closing and archiving of the SPI and added these new details, if you cared to weigh in. Grsz11 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

your commentsEdit

And i have left some more comments... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And please check out WP:AN and leave any comments you deem appropriate there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kindness BarnstarEdit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
David Levy, you are awarded with the Kindness Barnstar for your efforts to help editors in troubles over a sustained period of time until final success. Our community needs editors and administrators like you! Caspian blue 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I sincerely appreciate the sentiment.  :-) —David Levy 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Template:Editlink-rightEdit

A tag has been placed on Template:Editlink-right requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bypassing redirectsEdit

Hello! I noticed that you replaced numerous links to National Broadcasting Company with links to NBC. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you! —David Levy 01:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,
Thanks for the note. I hadn't seen that section of the guideline before. I wonder why on earth people are developing tools that highlight redirects if we're not supposed to do anything about them. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Although I was using AWB to make the "fixes", the script comes from here. It's supposed to catch disambiguation links (and highlights them), but it also highlights redirects. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks David. I appreciate the notes. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

ReplyEdit

I did not use rollback, but simply reverted. And on the second occasion I akcnowledged that the user may have had a legitimate reason for editing, however I saw a change to an established template, and thought it was vandalism. Drew Smith What I've done 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your last post.Drew Smith What I've done 09:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you check this edit? Obviously not proper for wikipedia, but I reverted with huggle, and after the fact realised it was probably a good faith edit.Drew Smith What I've done 10:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Have seen your reply...Edit

on User:Wildhartlivie's talk page. Thank you for taking the time to comment on what I had written. I appreciate the clarification/confirmation. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minor requestEdit

Noted - that makes sense, and apologies for that. (Of course, my excuse is that I considered SineBot to be a vandal! Nah, who am I trying to kid - it was my mistake!)

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UTC last editedEdit

But now Wikipedia doesn't show "UTC" for non-logged-in readers, which it should to clarify/specify the ambiguous time zone. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter for the MediaWiki developers to address. In the meantime, slight ambiguity is vastly preferable to absolute incorrectness. —David Levy 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
True, but are the devs even aware? --Cybercobra (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see a Bugzilla entry, so I filed one. —David Levy 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks, much appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAEdit

In case you get any further heat over your recent talk page comments you might find this diff useful. In a similar situation, I was criticized for not airing my concerns at the appropriate time when I listed a concern during RFA2 which occurred before RFA1 (an early withdrawal). After that I decided I would do as you have done today in future situations, although I have not yet been in that situation again. It seems, you just can't avoid being accused of maliciousness in these situations.--BirgitteSB 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your user pageEdit

Haha glad you liked it. As you say it was put in completely as a joke and the only reason it is targeted at the US over others is because it is so common to here Americans confuse England and the UK. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard to Queen refered to as the Queen of England (and the not of the United Kingdom) or seen a US television programme where people from England are refered to as the British (which, whilst technically correct, as the English are by definition also British, is not something that would normally happen). Also in English humour you tend to find that the Americans are a common target for jokes, along with the French, Germans and Irish - but don't worry it's nothing personal!! :-) --Daviessimo (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last editEdit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

comprisedEdit

I think, probably because of the "com-" prefix, the passive is increasingly becoming the preferred usage to suggest something where discrete parts become a discrete whole that functions together (as in "commingling", "conglomeration" etc.) yet with the parts still retaining a distinct identity. A whole can't become its parts and still remain a whole. The active voice of "comprise" seems to many people, I think, to imply that, which is why the passive voice seems safer when the whole formed by the parts is the subject.

Also, when "include" is used with more than one item afterwards, it seems increasingly to me to be used to imply that he list following is exhaustive, the former sense of "comprise" in the active voice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikipedialangEdit

Hi David. As I can see that you're usually updating this template from the template history, I came to ask you to add more Wikipedias into the template that exceed 20,000 articles, but are, for some reason, not on it. I felt like wasting 30 minutes just to give you this information. :D Stats are correct according to this website.

40,000+

Krèyol ayisyen · नेपाल भाषा · తెలుగు

20,000+

Sinugboanong Binisaya · मराठी · Piemontèis · Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски

I really hope you respond to this by adding these into the template. Thanks in advance, and happy editing! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how most of these aren't on the template. Any way to tell other Wikipedians that don't know about the 5 depth rule for this template, so that what I just did wouldn't be needed? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNeeEdit

I noticed your threat to block the above user at his talkpage, based upon his responses to Melonite. I would encourage you to look a bit deeper into the situation before actually taking any action such as that. Melonite has been goading, baiting, and forum-shopping (AfD, ANI, and WQA, to name a few) against Mick. Can Mick be quite blunt? Sure. Does it sometimes cross the line? Yes. Is it blockable, based upon the precipitating offenses of Melonite? I, personally, don't think so. I hope you understand I mean no offense with this note. I just wanted to let you know that the situation is much more complicated and complex than it appears at first blush. Unitanode 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a warning (for MickMacNee's benefit), not a threat. I have no intention of blocking MickMacNee at this juncture, but he needs to cease the incivility if he wishes to avoid such an occurrence in the future.
Note that Two wrongs = two wrongs; another individual's misconduct never justifies retaliatory personal attacks. If two users continually disrupt the project, both run the risk of being blocked (irrespective of who is the instigator). —David Levy 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindi WikipediaEdit

Hi David,

This is regarding inclusion of Hindi wikipedia in the list of wikipedias over 30k articles.One of the condition for inclusion of a wiki in such a list is so called random test. check this link. But When I clicked on 'Random Article' link for 50 times. I saw only 5 articles containing greater than 5 lines, and two of them are English articles copied as it is from English wiki. Can you take a look at it and do the needful? —రవిచంద్ర (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hallo Mr. David,
from your discussion It seems to us that you and one or two administrator of english wiki decide that which wikipeida should be shown on the left side of the main page of english wikipedia. Is the random test is the only criteria? We at hindi wiki had the concept that article count and depth are the only two criteria to be included on en wiki. So when we were thrown out then we took an initiative to increase our depth and article count simultaneously. We crossed article count of 40 thousand and depth rose to 20. then aflter also we were not included. there are very few active people on hindi wiki and we take this very seriously. Please consider your decision once again.--Munita Prasad (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tracy StaffordEdit

Re Tracy Stafford's page, I was provided with the two legislative district maps by the Florida Office of Economic & Demographic Research and given full permission to use them on Wikipedia. I hope that I have identified that copyright permission correctly on the maps; if not, if you wouldn't mind, please correct the style for me. However, there is no need for deletion. Thanks! Ejwii (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Ejwii

ITNEdit

2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final has been updated. Felipe Menegaz 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist-detailsEdit

Extra tilde? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out!  :-) —David Levy 00:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

peer-to-peerEdit

Hey, I hope you don't mind the move too much - if you do, sorry about that. A lack of response should (I have been told) be taken as conceding to the point (regardless of whether or not this is the case) for the sake of WP:BOLD. You stopped responding 5 days ago, so I assumed my response had satisfied you. Anyway, sorry, and thanks for participating there.   M   04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that five days is the cut-off point? If not, shouldn't I have assumed that you conceded when you didn't respond for four days? I didn't assume that, but the delay led me to lose track of the discussion. When you noticed that I wasn't responding, placing a note on my talk page (either via the {{talkback}} tag or manually) would have been helpful.
I accept your apology, of course. I'm sure that you were acting in good faith. —David Levy 04:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think so, yes - if you had wanted to be bold about something, I wouldn't have minded if you went ahead after one or two days, especially if I was active on WP during that time. I'll remember to inform the other editors next time :)   M   04:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

<=Regarding moving talk entries: why did you reposition M's talk entry when you responded to it? I am not understanding your view of what makes a talk page readable. In my view, you orphaned M's comment when you responded to it. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion that might be best cleared up here: if the majority (>50%) of people, when entering "peer-to-peer" into the go box, wish to see information about file sharing, does this indicate that file sharing is the primary topic? If not, why not?   M   02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That indicates that it's a primary topic. To be the primary topic, it would need to predominate to a far greater extent than that. This doesn't even take into account the the topics' considerable overlap (as I've noted in the move discussion). —David Levy 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the guideline say, for good reason, that when there are multiple primary topics (even just two), there should be a disambiguation page? If you are against it, then why is that? We don't want extra clicks, but we also do not want something unexpected - or worse yet, something that seems correct, but actually isn't.   M   07:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed all of this on the article's talk page. You're repeating yourself, and I'm tired of following suit. —David Levy 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You have not yet addressed the point about reader expectations being more or less important than readers having to click an extra time. I'm under the impression that click counts are your only metric in determining usefulness. Is this the case?   M   08:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I dispute your assertion that readers are likely to be surprised and confused upon arriving at an article directly related to the one that they seek. —David Levy 08:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Could you address the point about similar articles being even more surprising/confusing? If I arrive at peer-to-peer seeking file sharing, my lack of surprise is only due to my not realizing that I'm actually at the wrong article. If I arrived at ape and found the article at great ape, I might not even realize the mistake, since they're both so similar. How does similarity make things any less confusing?   M   08:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't. The possibility of confusion is addressed by the clear, detailed hatnote conveniently and conspicuously located at the top of the article. —David Levy 08:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
To be very clear about this: you are saying that it (ie similarity of the two primary topics) does not [make things any less confusing], correct? Your above dispute of my assertion rests on the premise that a hatnote does an adequate job of disambiguating between two primary topics. Do I have your position straight? In there anything important to add?   M   06:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
1. You're correct that I'm not claiming that the two topics' similarity makes arriving an an unintended article less confusing. It does, however, make it less surprising. When seeking articles, it's entirely foreseeable that one will sometimes first arrive at articles about related concepts. Unlike cases in which unrelated topics share the same or similar names, there is a significant likelihood of overlapping reader interest.
2. Properly implemented hatnotes provide ample disambiguation and alleviate potential confusion to as great an extent as any setup.
This is not to say that hatnotes always are suitable alternatives to disambiguation pages (hence my "properly implemented" qualifier). There can be no blanket procedure that works best in all situations. The optimal course of action must be determined on a case-by-case basis. —David Levy 07:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
So you believe that when most readers search for the term "peer-to-peer", the architecture is what they are looking for? Or does my claim that a significant number of readers are looking for file sharing have merit?   M   18:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you just asked that. Unbelievable. —David Levy 18:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please make your position clear by answering that very specific question? Is a significant portion of the readers arriving at peer-to-peer looking for file sharing (which, yes, is linked in a hatnote)?   M   19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a complete loss as to how I've been less than clear on this point.
David Levy 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Great. I hope, if established consensus turns out to be that a disambiguation page should be made under these circumstances, that you will change your vote from oppose to "support, [but oppose WP:D policy]".   M   05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Why would such an outcome lead me to alter my vote? It's okay to disagree with a discussion's results, you know.
And I don't oppose that guideline. I oppose blind adherence to any guideline. —David Levy 06:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It was just making your opposition more specific. You should be more careful with AGF and all that. You're assuming that I'm simply blindly following rules, when I've outlined repeatedly how this is both confusing readers, and causing the deterioration of both articles. You're also implying that your current opposition is to my blind adherence - which is an (actual) straw man, and personal attack. Anyway, this isn't as important now. You should focus on making a case for overturning long-established consensus regarding hatnotes.   M   06:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1. You're misrepresenting my position (just as you claim I'm doing). Again, I don't oppose that guideline.
2. As I've stated before, I do assume that you're acting in good faith. I haven't thought for a moment that your motive was anything other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia. I merely disagree with your assessment of how to accomplish that in this instance.
3. No, I don't assume that you're simply blindly following rules. (I was addressing the specific assertion that I oppose the guideline by not following it to the letter.) I've acknowledged your argument that the current setup "is confusing readers and causing the deterioration of both articles" by expressing my disagreement.
4. I seek to overturn nothing. —David Levy 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up the peer-to-peer dispute at WT:D. I was careful to not mention that dispute in my questions, and while I appreciate your concern that I plot to use the responses there against you as if they were specific evaluations of our disagreement elsewhere, trying to prevent this by spilling the dispute onto that page and therefore interfering with my attempts to get some advice is probably inappropriate.   M   06:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I harbor no such suspicion. Another editor raised the specific issue of the Peer-to-peer debate, and I merely seek to counter potentially incorrect inferences on the part of those reading the thread. —David Levy 07:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your remark as has been explained to you over and over again (among others)[2] is an ad hominem; please address the topic, not the other editor. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not an attack of any sort. When someone continually professes ignorance of my position, despite the fact that I have plainly stated it numerous times (as M is still doing above), it's entirely reasonable for me to bring to that user's attention that he/she is either ignoring or failing to comprehend what I've written. This is not belittlement; it's a sincere, good-faith attempt to close the apparent communication gap. —David Levy 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I said ad hominem, not attack, and ad hominem remarks do not belong on article talk pages. --Una Smith (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that the statement in question was not an ad hominem or any other type of attack. I was not attempting to further my argument by disparaging or discrediting my opponent. I merely sought to draw M's attention to an apparent communication failure. —David Levy 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for input: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Personal remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

<br/> for MP balanceEdit

Oh, I see. Actually it isn't my brainchild; it was first introduced by User:Anonymous... something. (I don't exactly recall the last half of the name, since we have been using that trick for quite some time) And I thought it was quite convenient, and rather gives more consistency given both TFA and OTD have some space between the main text body and the links to archive at the bottom. I suppose you disagree? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will be a far better solution. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Wikipedialang Edit

Is there a chance of a Wikimedia-wide dropping of the depth measurement. In my opinion it is useless and only encourages people to create useless bureaucracy to make their encyclopedias look better for political reasons YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

... for the prompt protection of the DYK lead images. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. By the way, could you add {{User admin Wikicommons}} or Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators to your user page? I've used the category in the past when an image needs protecting fast. Shubinator (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.  :) —David Levy 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

40,000 home page limitEdit

Hi David, I think that this limit should not be the only criteria for putting a link to a local wikipedia, because it only make the "stubs" problem deeper. Take a look for example the Macedonian Wikipedia (about 33,000 articles): [3] - hundreds of "mini stubs" with just one sentence and template appeared, just like this series [4](Aztec cities with just one sentence), [5] (Inca Empire articles with just one sentence), [6] (peaks of Macedonian with just one sentence) and so on. The admins even consider making a bot ([7]) to make stubs from a public available sources. The standard problem of the "year articles" is present as well ([8] - thousands of placeholders). Future raising of the limit will cause the same problem - again rush for more articles (mainly stubs & placeholders). This is only thoughts, you don't need to answer me, just to think about the future criteria :). Regards! --StanProg (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt articleEdit

David, I have at no time referred to this article as offensive. My first words on the subject if you care to check my contributions history was to assert that I am a user of the word and have no issue with it. You have possibly jumped on a bandwagon, or attributed other contributor’s comments to me.

My sole objection is placing this article on the landing page. I think it was an ill-judged decision. If you have read the talk page over there you will see many more erudite offerings than mine, but essentially arguing the point that we appear to have wanted to be “controversial” for the sake of it.

So what are some people crusading for? The right to display "cunt" on the landing page? Is that a worthy objective?

If the test in WP:Responsibility was considered, that would go some way to convincing me.

Regards my Harry Potter edits. I can still find only 2. If you can show me how to sort them from the contributions list I will amend my entry on the other page. I am an atheist. I have no interest in religious debates, Harry Potter / Witchcraft is all bollocks to me. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm referring to your "objection [to] placing this article on the landing page." My point is there are numerous things that people would be offended to see on that page, including Harry Potter. Do you think that it would be reasonable to bar Harry Potter articles from the main page on the basis that its appearance there would offend people?
Incidentally, here's a list of your edits to articles with "Harry Potter" in the title: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12
And your username is a Harry Potter reference, isn't it? —David Levy 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes my username is a Harry Potter reference. I am also a fan. Going to see the latest movie next week in fact.
In reply to your specific question, no, it would not be reasonable. I would be amazed if there was any existing or new HP material that would have the same "in your face" impact as the word cunt. It's not just part of Gropecunt, it's in the 2nd sentence on the front page. Due to the scunthorpe problem some firewalled users could not access wiki today. Is that a good thing? Just because well-written articles exist does not place an obligation to splash them. How about Nigger or fuck if they reached FA standard? Today's choice seems to be a case of let's be controversial for the sake of it. I would appreciate your opinion on the WP:Responsibility aspect if you have time. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I intended to refer to WP:Reasonability above. sorry for any confusion. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
1. There are people who believe that the Harry Potter stories encourage their children to forsake their religion in favor of the occult. You regard this is a lesser objection than that to the word "cunt"?
2. No, it's a bad thing that poorly written computer code prevented the main page from being accessed by some users. This, however, is a reason to fix the code, not to censor the main page.
3. Yes, I would support featuring Nigger and Fuck on the main page if they attained FA status.
4. No, it's not "a case of let's be controversial for the sake of it." It's a case of "let's treat this encyclopedic article just as we normally would, despite the controversy."
5. What is your point regarding Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule (formerly Wikipedia:Don't be a fucking idiot)? —David Levy 00:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism AdviceEdit

Hi, as I'm sure you know, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and sometimes (once in a very rare while), my sense of humour gets the best of me, and I impersonate and admin by adding my name to the List of Administrators. Humour aside, I became a Wikipedia user to try and defend against the high level of vandalism that has resulted in most educational institutions ruling out Wikipedia as a viable source of information. I was wondering if there were any suggestions you could give me on how to properly go about policing Wikipedia. How does one detect vandalism, without going about the slow process of scanning the recent changes page? Also, once detected, what is the most efficient method of dealing with vandalism? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Saforcer (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected imagesEdit

Yes I did see your complaint at DYK talk a few days ago. Unfortunately after I promoted that update to the queue last night, Wikipedia went AWOL, and I was unable to edit a Wikipedia page for an hour. In the end I just gave up. That's how come the image didn't get protected. Gatoclass (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Besides the source issue, the new image actually looks better at 100x100px. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :-) —David Levy 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang (2)Edit

When editing templates, be sure you're not breaking them in the process. ;) Q T C 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for catching my error! —David Levy 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

40.000 articlesEdit

Hi David Levy! Thanks for your suggestion but we have tried many times to change the logo and we have only get silence on Meta. They also suggested us to make the changes on sitenotice and not on the logo. If you could help us with that it would be incredible, but we decided not to ask because of the great time we need to convince someone even to consider it. Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it yet. Thank you very much. -Theklan (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! -Theklan (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1 April 2010Edit

Hi there. I thought I'd keep you updated. I know you fancied seeing Gropecunt Lane as next year's April Fool, but the article I envisage fulfilling that role is currently at FAC. Feel free to comment, but if you don't feel its suitable I also have Cock Lane ghost waiting for GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The UPN Vandal strikesEdit

The UPN Vandal may have came back under an IP. A bot reverted it. he put racist vandalism on the page. --Meteorman7228 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiber One barsEdit

'Cause "redirects are cheap" and it at least steers WP and Google searchers to the page of the manufacturer. I would rather it redirect to Fiber One, but there was no article there, either (hence why it is now a redirect, too). youngamerican (wtf?) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OrlyEdit

Hi - just wanted to say I've been keeping up with this Orly Taitz debate with interest, and that you seem to be saying exactly the things I'd want to hear from an admin - and I hope you don't let the seeming illogic of others' stances dissuade you from doing what's right (not even Right by some morale standards, but just clearly in line with wikipedia's stated policy). Luminifer (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind sentiment! I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to leave this note. —David Levy 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OoopsEdit

Your right about the TFA part, that was actually what I meant (since there's still occasionally disputes particularly when there's no image and occasionally when the image is highly peripheral) with people claiming there's never really be consensus and instead it's Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem as you're probably aware. But re-reading my comment it was very poorly phrased and didn't actually convey that so thanks for the clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Smile!Edit

I think it was a bugEdit

I am using the new beta interface, and I think that is why everything but the section that I edited got deleted. Thanks for fixing it. Yonideworst (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I assumed that this resulted from some sort of technical glitch. —David Levy 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reported the bug, so hopefully it will be fixed. I can assure you that I did not intentionally delete all that text. Yonideworst (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it was not a bug with the beta interface. What happened was that my browser (firefox) crashed while I was editing the talk page. The nice thing about firefox is that when it crashes, it saves the state of the browser prior to the crash, so when I re-launched firefox it came back up with all the tabs, including my edit tab. However, for whatever reason after firefox came back up, it came back up as editing the entire page rather than editing just a section. So that was the real bug, which I do not know if it is related to the beta interface. Yonideworst (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's okay; things like that happen from time to time. No one thinks that you intentionally removed the text.  :) —David Levy 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ClemensEdit

Sorry to keep beating this drum, but I infer from your surprise at his recalcitrance at the Taitz AFD that you share (even if to a much smaller degree) my concerns about him, or at least, of an admin behaving in that way. If so, is there anything that can be done? I pursued sanctions at ANI, but no action was taken.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: FileEdit

Hey, thanks for the info! I was going to upload the copyright info but got side-tracked by some changes on the article itself. The program I used was Adobe Photoshop CS2; I think I forgot to specify new settings for the picture, and it was saved under the same settings as the image I cropped it from. I can definitely configure it to provide 100% quality, small-size crops, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Activity of 'David Fuchs'Edit

Argh. He just cannot accept the change being made in terms of the SVG logo. He has made comments in revert summaries, such as 'either way, you are not a significant contributor to this article. please go away and plaster your SVGs elsewhere, if you will', and 'I'll repeat my statements; go away, and learn how to properly license images. It's rather sad when applying boilerplate templates you can't even select the proper one. I'm done discussing this with you', yet he still refuses to accept that the image is licensed properly. This is driving me insane, I think he is being overprotective of the article (Bungie), and, to make those comments, while he is an admin? That shouldn't be coming from him. Can you offer some help? Thanks. --Connormah (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've almost had it. He is still reverting these edits to the article that I have made, including a new, updated screenshot of the Bungie website. Can anything be done? --Connormah (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of these comments from him. He has left more comments, which I do not favor on my talk page. What can I do? --Connormah (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are more comments on my User_talk:Connormah#Nonfree_SVGs. Could you please link them to the WP:AN/I, and to his talk page? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I have given into David's conduct regarding the SVG (which I regret now), I believe he should not get away with his uncivil conduct throughout this whole entire issue. --Connormah (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
He has archived the discussion. It seems as though he is avoiding answering your question. He has been so stubborn and uncivil throughout this dispute...can anything be done to teach him a lesson? Connormah (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but, I don't think he should have been acting the way he was...he is an admin, isn't he a one that people ask for help, and help enforce the policies? I still think the SVG should be used, but now that David thinks we have reached an agreement, which I regret now. Shall I initiate another discussion on his talk? Connormah (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Should I do anything about David's conduct towards me during the Bungie dispute, or just let it go? I was seriously considering an AN/I report of it, and I don't think it's too late for one. Not that he's been uncivil recently, but I don't like the idea of just letting it go. Connormah (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to participate in a discussion, but I'm not entirely sure if I'd be able to actively, as I have school as my primary focus. I can move on from the incivilty, but he cannot get away with it, in my opinion, he has to be told by someone that that is unacceptable, especially coming from an admin like him. Some on his comments were hard to reply to without resorting to incivilty myself, but I managed not to. Connormah (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the newsEdit

It's a tad harsh to remove the Usain Bolt hook barely seven hours after he ran the 200 metres record isn't it? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I overlooked the update. I've restored the item. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! —David Levy 02:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Sprint world records are pretty much the only piece of athletics news that will hit the main page, and they don't tend to come in pairs very often either! Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TfD:Expand language template familyEdit

I noted your username in the template's edit history, and invite you to participate in this TfD discussion. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: BungieEdit

I don't acquiesce to ultimatums. If he doesn't check the talk page and goes off to whine the first opportunity, I can't be bothered with him. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need an RfC. Connor refuses to discuss, I will continue to revert him. He needs to either respond or go away. Other people are trying to improve the encyclopedia. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect Connor to talk to me rather than running to another user. If he's so sure he's in the right, he can start the RfC. I'm done discussing anything with you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Expand languageEdit

Thank you for deferring me to the proper forum, I followed your advice, archived the TfD thread and RfC'ed the issue at Wikipedia talk:Translation#RfC: Expand language template family - Should editors be encouraged to translate interwiki articles?. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be right backEdit

I have to run out for at least an hour, but I just wanted to let you know that I say your post and I was planning on replying. Can I suggest that you break out your replies into separate subsections? It's a good breakdown of the various aspects of the debate, and some courtesy breaks could be helpful in gathering wider participation. See you in a bit!
V = I * R (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Brief intermissionEdit

Hi David!

I just wanted to come here and leave you a note, real quick. For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, I seem to be slightly... stressed, I guess, today. That being the case, I think that I'm going to "walk away" for at least several hours. I'm not going to forget about the discussion though, which is the main reason that I'm leaving you this note. I'll come back to our debate in a little while.
V = I * R (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation - Retort to "Warning"Edit

I was not trying to vandalize the Marvel Comics article - I made a beginner's mistake (accidentally deleting the reference along with the silly comment about Mickey Mouse and Miley Cyrus). I suggest you program your computer software to recognize when immediate edits or re-edits are not intentional "unconstructive edits".

I was merely trying to help but, guess what this is the one and ONLY time you will receive any assistance editing from me!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mremann49224 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BungieEdit

I offered to start an RfC if Connor was willing to respond; he suggested the PNG. That's it. In no way did I threaten to revert. As for PNG accessibility, I've never heard of the issue, and considering that IE doesn't support SVG in any concrete form still, I'm not sure that holds any water. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/ArchivesEdit

Thanks for the update! I was going to do it, but my Internet connection went off until now. Regards, Korg (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, sorry for that! Korg (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: ITNEdit

Regarding this edit:
We frequently link directly to the relevant section, particularly when an article is long. Dropping readers onto the page (with no clear indication of where to find information related to the blurb) is confusing and unhelpful.
The section in question is the basis of the item's inclusion, so if the section is in poor shape, the item probably should be removed.
Also note that neither that edit nor the one that followed was minor. —David Levy 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, David.... I am not sure what is confusing and why ITN wants to help readers find that one new paragraph -- that's not what ITN is for. ITN is about featuring articles that got updated, not featuring the updates. Hopefully, people will read the whole article! By directing the attention to a particular section, the sections above it may get ignored. And that's not good. "We frequently link directly..."? I'm fairly sure we (admins at ITN) used to frown on such piping. I don't do much at ITN these days. If you and other admins currently running ITN like things this way, go ahead. I won't revert. You're right in your edit summary that I wouldn't mind. I just don't think it's a good idea to pipe from MainPage to one particular section, rather than getting the reader to start at the top of the article.
The basis of the item's inclusion is actually the last paragraph of that section in the "Clmate of the Arctics" article. The problems I see are in the preceding paragraphs. Just formatting issues, not bad enough to yank anything off ITN.
The minor stuffs? They are minor to me.... and really too minor to talk about. I have two other msg to respond to (below), and I really should be in bed soon.... I hope you don't mind. Good night, David. Nice to hear from you again, anyway. Take care. --PFHLai (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Indeed, it's best if the entire article is read. But that isn't what someone is likely to do if he/she arrives at the top of the page. At that point, the aforementioned confusion arises because the article doesn't appear to directly relate to the blurb. And rather than reading on (and eventually reaching the relevant text), he/she simply leaves the article.
Also note that a non-section-specific link already was included (albeit not displayed in bold), thereby encouraging users to read the full article. Additionally, it's easy for readers to scroll up after reading the relevant section.
2. This isn't a matter of what the admins editing ITN "like"; the practice reflects feedback received from readers.
3. Per Help:Minor edit, "a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." In other words, an edit stemming from disagreement with how something was intentionally done is not minor.
4. It's nice to chat again. It's been a while. Good night (or good morning, if you're reading this tomorrow). —David Levy 06:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, David. Sorry about the belated reply. I've been off-line the last few days. I can no longer log in as often as I used to.
1. I am not sure if we can assume what the readers want, apart from accessing articles in an online encyclopedia. I'd just sent them to the top of a page, where a table of contents should be (along with the intro'). They can scroll or click and jump to the sections that interest them. News articles, focusing on what just happened, and encyclopedic articles, with an emphasis on the background stories that lead up to what just happened, are very different things. Readers who just want the news really should be at a news site such as Wikinews, rather than here, an online encyclopedia. Directly linking to the latest additions, at least to me, is like skipping much of the good parts of the encyclopedia.
2. I'm not aware of readers' feedback about this. I sincerely hope that you and other admins don't simply do what the crowd says, instead of screening out the bad ideas. If you don't like the idea, don't do it. (Unless, of course, the consequences of not doing whatever that is are worse.) If you think the piping is a good idea, go ahead. But to me, it's a bad pipe.
3. I'm glad that you understand why I marked them "minor". I didn't think the pipe removal would require review or lead to disputes. (If I did, I would've left a note on the talkpage.) I saw a bad pipe. I removed it without changing the text. So I marked those edits as minor edits. I didn't expect a disagreement with anyone.
I'm not sure if you still want to talk about this. The Arctic item is no longer on ITN. I thought I should give you a reply.
Anyway, have a nice weekend, David. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: 2009 Tri Nations SeriesEdit

Heh, don't worry about it. I don't actually follow the rugby but I saw that someone had commented on the wording in WP:ERRORS and thought that was a suitable workaround for the time being :)  GARDEN  18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ellis-twick.jpgEdit

File:Ellis-twick.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ellis-twick.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ellis-twick.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Rambo (film series)#Requested moveEdit

I'm sorry you had to go through the work yourself. I performed the move and corrected the double redirects, but somehow missed fixing the actual article links that pointed to the disambiguation page. By the way, I don't think such a task could be performed by a bot, since I'm sure some of the links were not supposed to point to the film series page in the first place. (I know some of the redirects weren't!) I'll try to remember to fix links I've broken in the future when moving pages around. Thanks for your diligence and the input. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

List formattingEdit

Just FYI, inserting blank lines between bulleted items (e.g., here) breaks the list formatting. You produced eight separate single-item lists with this change, when we ought to have one single list. This broken formatting is a problem for readers who rely on screen readers per WP:ACCESS. Apparently the screen readers, rather than just reading the text, stop and say something like, "A list of one item" before reading the text. I'm sure you can easily imagine how annoying it must be. Please correct the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the blank lines. Needless to say, I was unaware of this issue, and I sincerely thank you for bringing it to my attention. —David Levy 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take ManhattanEdit

  Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday October 10
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Full stopEdit

I removed it beause it looks out of place in front of that > sign and in that small font. If you insist on having it (per correct grammar), please add it in Template:Tfm-inline also. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: RamboEdit

Ok, I always thought the hatlink should point to the correct name of the dab page. I'll keep the guideline in mind. Thanks for pointing that out. Jafeluv (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:NotverifiedEdit

I have nominated Template:Notverified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:ImageEdit

Oh, sorry about that! My reasoning was that, since it was the same as the article's image, protecting it would result in the article image also being protected; if anybody wanted to upload a new, better image during this time, they wouldn't be able to (as Wikipedia defaults to on-site images, if I'm correct). Hence, I felt I should upload a different image. However, I completely didn't think about the consequences you mentioned. Sorry about that! Thanks a lot for telling me, too. :) Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon boy and WP:NOTNEWSEdit

After reading the ridiculous and repetitive discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident, and after seeing almost identical results on numerous other pages, I decided to write a short essay at User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS to sum up my opinions on the matter for easy linking on future AfD pages. Since most of what I say there is similar to the stuff you've been saying, I thought you might be interested in taking a look and critiquing/borrowing/quoting/improving/etc. --Dlugar (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindi WikipediaEdit

hallo Mr. David,
from your discussion It seems to us that you and one or two administrator of english wiki decide that which wikipeida should be shown on the left side of the main page of english wikipedia. Is the random test is the only criteria? We at hindi wiki had the concept that article count and depth are the only two criteria to be included on en wiki. So when we were thrown out then we took an initiative to increase our depth and article count simultaneously. We crossed article count of 40 thousand and depth rose to 20. then aflter also we were not included. there are very few active people on hindi wiki and we take this very seriously. Please consider your decision once again.--Munita Prasad (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! The article count and depth are still considered, but we now also manually sample articles to gauge their quality.
My advice is to focus your energies on improving the Hindi Wikipedia's quality for the benefit of its readers (not on increasing numerical measurements for the purpose of being listed on the English Wikipedia's main page). —David Levy 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Mr. David, after a period of one and half months I once again like to remind you of about our hindi wikipedia link on the main page of english wikipedia. After your good suggestions We took these 50 days to improve our quality only. No substantial increase of number of article and no increase of numerical depth. we at hindi wiki focussed only on improving our quality. Please take a look at our hindi wiki by dooing random test our whatever means you choose. waiting for your kind reply.--Munita Prasad (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:SignatureEdit

Hey there! On my talk page or on others? It's showing clearly for me (1200x880 resolution, I believe), and my font sizes are set pretty small. However, I'll change it if it's misbehaving on other pages. Master of Puppets 03:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange things about! Master of Puppets 03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The span is cut off by all pages by mine, so I tend to leave it out so that the signature can be as short as possible. Thanks for adding it in, though! Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Jayanti: 2 Nov, On this day...Edit

Today is Guru Nanak Jayanti in the Sikhism (one of the biggest Sikh festivals, Indian national holiday) , Shouldn't it be included in On this day...- ReferenceReference--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERRORSEdit

What do you think about this request? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:G4TV.svgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:G4TV.svg. 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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature Thanks!Edit

Mr. Levy, I would like to thank you for fixing my signature. It always said that I didn't sign my comments when I did, and therefore, I thought that my computer was broken or something.

Thanks!!!Red Wiki 03:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talkcontribs)

I am sorry for my actionsEdit

that was bad of me to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:2008 main page redesign study current 800x600.png listed for deletionEdit

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008 main page redesign study current 800x600.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Input requestEdit

I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter? Connormah (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

FFPEdit

I was going to start a talk page discussion and then thought to hell with it and just fixed it. Let's see if anyone reverts me. Feel free to amend further. Chick Bowen 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Empty TFA guardEdit

Do you mind if I implement it tomorrow? Shubinator (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Shubinator (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Shubinator (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYCEdit

 
Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

I was feeling sort of depressed with the state of Wikipedia, then I stumbled across Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse (and the talk page). It brought a smile to my face. Just wanted to give you a thank you note for creating that. Killiondude (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to sign Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible RfAEdit

Hey David, I have been pondering self-nominating my self for adminship in the near future, but have not made my mind up yet. User:Wehwalt has suggested that I take up writing an article before I go ahead, and I am planning to do just that, but I would greatly appreciate another opinion from someone else, also, in addition to Wehwalt's comments (I greatly trust both of you), to take into consideration. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. If you could reply on my talk, that'd be great. Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, I need an Administrator specialized on Classical and Byzantine History.Edit

And how can I find one when I need one too. Thank you. Dgarq (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

LastmodifiedatEdit

Yes, because of the linebreak change - I figured it didn't matter if the on was there or not, it didn't change the meaning at all. Prodego talk 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving 23rd Infantry DivisionEdit

Reverted your edit to the "23rd Infantry Division (United States)" page and edited the redirect of "23rd Infantry Division" to lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23rd_Division instead. A disambiguation page *is* required since there are numerous 23rd Infantry Divisions. If you have a response, place it on my talk page. Tchernobog (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Humour tagEdit

I think one reason i was labelling it as that was because of a previous event at RFA. Simply south (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MILMOSEdit

I've undone your edits at the milmos page; please discuss changes in our milmos before actually making them, as a shift in the milmos position can create problems for us down the road. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revertEdit

This unexplained revert was undone by Ucucha. I presume it was some kind of mistake, because nobody would object to all of that long list of uncontroversial Manual of Style changes and such. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that was accidental on my part, and I was unaware that it occurred until you brought it to my attention. (I can only assume that I somehow clicked on the "rollback" link from my watchlist in the process of following a different link.) I sincerely apologize. —David Levy 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
To prevent this from happening again, I edited User:David Levy/monobook.css to add code that suppresses the "rollback" link from my watchlist (where I don't recall ever intentionally using it and envision no situation in which I would). —David Levy 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles HitsEdit

Hi! I've reverted your unilateral move back to the previous title. Feel free to take it to WP:RM again if you disagree with the earlier discussion. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent changes to military unit name format caused an orphan articleEdit

Your recent change to 35th Infantry Regiment (United States) to 35th Infantry Regiment has caused problems. Apparently you have done this in the past to another military related article. That has been reverted. FYI the British and Indian Armies have a 35th Infantry Regiment and it is likely there will be an article eventually on one of them. The format you changed has been painstakingly set and agreed upon by many in Wikipedia. It is an agreed upon format.

If you wish to change this standardized format for military related units then you need to get permission and agreement from other administrators to do so.

I request that you change the above mentioned article back to the way it was. This way it can be found in the accepted search formats in Wikipedia and not be listed as an ORPHAN article because of your recent naming change.

Thank you in advance. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Preemptive disambiguation, where I've agreed (as recommended by a member of the WikiProject) to leave all of these articles where they are pending the discussion's outcome.
I hope that you'll consider my hatnote proposal, which I believe would improve the articles' format for everyone.
To clarify, the article has not actually been "orphaned"; the tag was incorrectly added by another editor (and I've just removed it).
Thank you! —David Levy 08:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
David, Thank you for the information. The hatnote is not needed if the accepted format from 2006 continues. To be honest, I believe in KISS - Keep it simple Simmon. The hatnote is neat but is more complicated than it needs to be. No offensive, but I vote to maintain the format maintained since 2006 for military naming formats. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Preemptive disambiguation for my different points. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1. As noted in the discussion, the naming format fails to convey the intended information to most users. A hatnote would be far more helpful.
2. I agree that things should be kept simple. Using a hatnote—as we do throughout Wikipedia—is much less complicated than maintaining a special, directly contradictory guideline for one subject area (without any practical means of conveying this to users not involved in the WikiProject). —David Levy 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A7 reason on the drop downEdit

Please see WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines?, which i pointed at on MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown#A7 summary, reprise before i edited the page. There seems to be consensus on the WT:CSD page that the "no indications of Importance" wording (which you reintroduced in this edit is misleading and unhelpful. Please consider self-reverting or at least engaging in the discussion on the WT:CSD page. DES (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that discussion. (In the future, it would be helpful to include a link in the edit summary instead of appending it to a thread from more than a year ago, which I didn't notice when I checked the bottom of the talk page.)
I've replied to the discussion and adjusted the wording to address the concern expressed therein. —David Levy 00:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACTOR and non-standard Filmographies (redux)Edit

Hi. I just read the long thread at:

I rather expect you'll recall it. I'm very much in agreement with you on the issues discussed in that thread. I've stumbled into this issue during the last few days, having worked on maybe 20 filmographies attempting to clean-up poor markup and styling. And Guess who I ran into? WHL.

I think the time has come to sort the issue of non-standard styling in the name of a wikiproject. The whole initiative originating there reeks of article ownership, wikiprojects as "governing" bodies, and impeding site accessibility in the name of meretricious appearance.

I think the appropriate outcome is filmographies either implemented as bog-standard wikitables, or a suite of templates/css that allow central control of the styling (i.e. to site-wide conventions).

The current point of discussion is at:

I hope to see you there.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

fyi, things have mellowed and there's not much support for the status-quo. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be a matter of interpretation. There isn't much support for the font size, but as for the heading itself, there is split consensus. Mostly what's been posted lately has been protest against your treatment of me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's time to close that discussion; it's been threeish weeks and thing are running in circles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

fyi, the RfC is now closed and there's an implementation discussion at:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to say...Edit

Thank you. This is the manner he has addressed me for a while now and when I complained about the manner and tone of what he says, I was rebuffed [9] [10] [11]. I have a totally unrelated issue, may I write to you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WildhartlivieEdit

Hi. I've tangled with WHL on a number of pages today and since you're familiar with much of this, I ask that you review it. The primary pages are WT:ACTOR, her talk page, and that of Doc9871. I've been civil and am seeking a proper resolution to all this. She's evasive, disingenuous, and spreads bad faith accusations all over. I would prefer to see this sorted without going through all the DR steps, but will pursue them, as needed. I don't know if you're familiar with my history, but I've been through such disputes before and know the ropes. I've been on this project longer than you have, although it's not been with just this account.

Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew  02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already written to David about this, and posting a threat to institute dispute resolution is fairly combative in nature. I want you to stop harassing me on my talk page and stop "tangling" with me. I've not been evasive or disengenuous, I've been quite blunt, one point being I do not want you to continue to post to my talk page. You're annoyed that I reverted a bad edit to an article and notified editors against whose opinions you've made certain comments. I don't want to play this game with you, Jack, and I want you to desist in jumping me for every offense you perceive I've committed. The Kendrick revert was not introducing any code that wasn't already there before that edit that introduced other issues and mixed the extant table coding with another. That's simply what I want from you. Stop posting your comments about me on various talk pages. I'm weary of the games. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help.Edit

Hello I created several pages last year and they all had copyrighted data on them. I didn't think too much about putting the data on wikipedia, now I would like to get rid of them. I didn't mean to take the data. Please help me delete these pages because I think that they don't have too much encyclopedic value.

Sorry I forgot to add my user name User:BennyK95 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to have bothered you, we have reviewed the articles and have almost got it fixed. - BennyK95 - Talk 16:41 March 19 2010 (UTC)

Hello i created an a account with all my work in it, please help me cause i was wondering if i can get it back (Bao Quach 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)) --user:BowserQs

Otheruses3 Should Be Deleted, I Had No Time To OpineEdit

Deletion review for Template:Otheruses3Edit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Otheruses3. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 174.3.98.20 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate editsEdit

I did stop making the edits as you requested. The first link you left is to an article I havent edited and the second was a meaningfrul edit. I replaced the nofootnotes template with morefootnotes because it has some it just needs more. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The first one also had some correction to reference formatting. The MOS states (somewhere I cannot seem to locate at the moment) that there shouldbe no space between the reference and the item it is referencing. This edit removed that space. Its most clear in the one at the bottom. --Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem me too. --Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Google imageEdit

Thanks for fixing that, I was wondering why I couldn't see it in my usual browser. How do you know if an image is in the ad/ subdirectory and how did you fix it? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

IfEdit

If there was a barnstar that's the opposite of {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, I'd award it to you )-; Fletsi (aklt) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Did I misinterpret "feel free to revert"? —David Levy 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I hear Wal-Mart is doing 50% off senses of humour this week (-: Fletsi (aklt) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Page Discussion PageEdit

What is the meaning of the instruction in the 'Did you know?' section? Denisarona (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In the "Errors in Did you know?" section there are strange instructions left by 'Repiceman89' and being relatively new to Wikipedia I don't understand them.Denisarona (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CommaEdit

For this edit, I enforce that rule often, so perhaps you could explain to me the difference between "On January 15, 1947, she began tertiary study." and "Targets of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike; still frame from the full length video". Art LaPella (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons imagesEdit

Is there a problem with using images from commons? I noticed you removed an image from an article that's used on about 15 other wikipedias. Shouldn't we wait for the resolution of this, on commons? If it's problematic it will be surely deleted. Thx for the reply. Hobartimus (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking also because the image in question (of Orbán) claims to be from the Hungarian wikipedia and it also appears there. I happen to know for a fact that they are copyright fetishist, not even allowing a single fair use image, so it is extremely unlikely that the image is a vio. Hobartimus (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, I see the image, in their main Orbán article, it's different. It seems that's an OTRS approved image.[12] Can't we use that somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It's for noncomercial use only and the source (fidesz.hu) must be noted. The image also cant be modified and manipulated and should be used for illustration of Fidesz related articles on Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrections to network article titlesEdit

I know it is common for the words "network", "channel", and even "station" to be used (and frequently misused) interchangeably. However, the articles in question are clearly about networks, which originate programming and distribute it to providers. Regardless of whether these providers are TV stations, cable headends, or satellite teleports, it is still a TV network. A TV channel is simply a physical (RF) or virtual (data) communications channel through which the programming travels, designated either by the frequency, or some number that indicates the frequency range or the transport stream.

Also note the categories to which they are assigned are appropriately titled "... networks" and not "... channels". The corrections I made to the articles are consistent with this, with other articles in the same category, and with the definitions above and in the industry. –radiojon (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your definitions, as do my university professors with decades of experience in the television industry.
Your changes are undiscussed and disputed. You were aware of this, and you nonetheless reinstated them without even supplying move/edit summaries (and continued after being asked to stop). You even edited the TV network article to redefine the the term in a manner justifying your changes.
Please self-revert and seek consensus for your changes. —David Levy 23:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In the news (2)Edit

...because a picture of the prize awarded every single year for excellence in journalism in America is more notable and informative than one of the recently-deceased Polish president and icon also involved in the worst disaster to affect Poland in the 21st Century? Well, you're the boss. --92.26.51.249 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally placed Kaczyński's photograph on the main page, where it remained for more than 3 ½ days. The corresponding blurb currently is fifth from the top and will be removed in the near future. We seek to illustrate newer items (ideally the newest one) to maximize variety, minimize confusion (by having the relevant blurb as close to the image as possible) and prevent disruption as older items are removed.
Just as the order in which the items appear is purely chronological, the illustration of a particular one is not indicative of its relative importance or any representation thereof. —David Levy 00:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

POTD page creationEdit

FYI: User talk:Schutz#POTD page creation. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian WikipediaEdit

Hi, David. We've already reached 40,000 articles, and it was mentioned on the talkpage of the tmplate. As I can see, nobody have seen it. Could you please, add a link in the tier in the right order? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How did you conclude it? Is it based on some criterias? I asked for establishing criterias (see here), but nobody responded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you note a more specific explanation, altogether with a contrast with the standard criterias for checking random articles? Don't tell me that you haven't established yet such criterias, and you're using the test ruled by your own thought?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Move-specializedEdit

 Template:Move-specialized has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?Edit

Hey David, I think I need a Commons admin. A friend of mine has just non-admin closed an AfD as transwiki to Commons, but neither of us are entirely sure of the process. If you have a moment to assist us, the thread is at User talk:HJ Mitchell#My first close - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of triband flags. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

James CookEdit

Hey David, I was wondering if you could weigh in on Talk:James Cook. There is a dispute on whether to add an image or not. It is claimed that the particular image qualifies as original research. The image was also nominated for deletion at Commons for having "no encyclopedic value", which, I believe is an invalid reason, seeing as Commons is not encyclopedia, rather a free media repository, to my understanding. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your input is appreciated. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2008 main page redesign study current 800x600.png listed for deletionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008 main page redesign study current 800x600.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lord#FilmographyEdit

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Jack Merridew 18:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN/CEdit

Hey David, if you have a minute, would you take a look at WP:ITN/C#Pakistan attack with a view to posting? I'd do it myself but I added most of the content to the article. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohmand Agency attackEdit

I suggest moving this to "July 2010 Mohmand Agency attack" as this is normally the format used for other articles, and the title is not sufficient enough (an attack could include anything at any time, hence the need for the date). Mar4d (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN World Cup itemEdit

Regarding this edit:
I realize that the FIFA World Cup has greater global recognition than most sporting events do. Having added it myself, I also realize that the ball is pictured.
However, such wording does not merely serve to specify the sport; it also is a means of linking to our article about the sport. If the sole objective were to identify potential unknowns, none of non-bold links (including one to 2010 FIFA World Cup) would be present.
Also note that we recently retained the "In tennis" wording while displaying photographs of French Open players holding tennis rackets on tennis courts (and have consistently acted in kind with other sports), so I'm not aware of any consensus/precedent for omitting such wording when the image renders the sport obvious. In addition to the aforementioned fact that identifying the sport isn't the only objective, we must keep in mind that not everyone sees the image (due to technical limitations and visual impairments). —David Levy 15:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my perspective is particularly unusual or otherwise difficult to understand, but the way you approach it suggests I have to state the obvious. Basically, what I have always thought is that we write enough to convey the news item, and then see which links fit in based on that wording. Hence, your suggestion that 2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under my logic is clearly absurd.
And I see no reason to believe that people believe otherwise. The item, for example, used to link to extra time, but because someone thought that it was not essential to conveying the gist of the news item, it was removed (along with the link to overtime (sports)). Similarly, I'm quite certain we have added "In American football" before Super Bowl items largely due to complaints that not everyone knows about the Super Bowl. Similar goes for the NBA finals, and several other sports. Others, like Wimbledon, are probably known by most people, but it's included anyway, I suppose just in case. But the World Cup is so well known, it doesn't need it and it seems rather condescending to elaborate like that, particularly when we don't elaborate other lesser-known pieces of information.
Including an unneeded phrase just to link to a broad article about a topic people probably already know about does not appear to be standard on ITN. The point about the picture only drove things home; even without the picture, mentioning the sport is unnecessary (hence, why I didn't include it when initially adding the item). -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I'm a bit taken aback. My intention was to post a friendly explanation of my logic for adding the wording. I didn't wheel-war or rush to initiate a community discussion without consulting you. Instead, I came to your talk page to express my views, which I felt was the most courteous approach. I don't know what I did to provoke the above response, but I sincerely apologize if my message came across as some sort of attack.
2. I didn't mean to imply that "2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under [your] logic" (which surely doesn't include the belief that "the sole objective [is] to identify potential unknowns"). My point was merely that the added benefit of linking to a relevant article (even when its general subject can be presumed familiar) applies as much to the wording in question (assuming its presence) as it does to those other links.
3. As on prior occasions (e.g. 1, 2, 3 4), Tone performed that edit on the basis that "we never add results" (i.e. scores and other such specifics).
4. I don't assert that we should include such wording "just to link to" the article about the sport. I regard this as a significant benefit, but I also believe that specifying the sport is a sensible, clarity-conducive, harmless-at-worst practice (even when the event is widely known).
But I fully recognize the logic of your contrary position (as I tried to convey upfront) and certainly don't mean to suggest that it's strange or unreasonable. Sorry again for any offense caused. —David Levy 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C againEdit

Hey David, sorry to bug you, but if you have a moment to spare, could you take a look at WP:ITN/C#Deepwater Horizon oil spill- I've updated the article and suggested a blurb so you shouldn't have much work to do! Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Oosthuizen victory.jpgEdit

I managed to obtain a photo of the event itself. You may wish to crop this for the main page, more suitable I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Slam dunkEdit

[moved from User talk:Wolfkeeper]

I just noticed your edit summary "deleted garbage by troll" and examined the thread that you removed.
1. The aforementioned edit summary was a personal attack for which you should apologize.
2. Nothing that Feeeshboy wrote was rude or otherwise inappropriate. He went out of his way to seek polite discourse, and you responded with rancor.
3. As Feeeshboy patiently attempted to explain, your understanding of Wikipedia:Content forking is incorrect. Where subjects overlap, duplication of portions of text is a standard practice. Feeeshboy provided a link directly to the section of the guideline in which this is stated, and you inexplicably dismissed it.
You're welcome to discuss the text's editorial value on the article's talk page (as Feeeshboy invited you to do), but please remain civil and refrain from misapplying the guideline. Thank you. —David Levy 01:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem quite confused. A content fork is simply an unnecessary duplication of material. The guideline states clearly that:
A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.
In this case the subject is the idiom 'slam dunk', which is currently completely covered, and completely independently both from each other and the articles around them in two separate places, and without there being any requirement at all to do that.- Wolfkeeper 02:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The guideline contains explanations of when it is appropriate and inappropriate to duplicate content. Where topics overlap, it can be appropriate to duplicate a portion of one article's text in another article.
That, of course, does not mean that this particular text automatically belongs. I'm merely noting you're mistaken in your belief that it's prohibited by the content forking guideline. —David Levy 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Careful here, it is forbidden by Wikipedia:Content_fork#Redundant_content_forks.- Wolfkeeper 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Again, that page contains explanations of when it is appropriate and inappropriate to duplicate content. Please see the Acceptable types of forking section (to which Feeeshboy referred you), particularly the Related articles subsection. —David Levy 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't meet any of those. It's not a subarticle, and they're not related topics in the sense meant (overlap).- Wolfkeeper 05:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There is overlap with the subject of sports idioms. Whether this warrants inclusion of the text in question can reasonably be debated, but there is no rule prohibiting it. —David Levy 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I just read the entire discussion at Talk:Slam dunk, in which there is clear consensus for the text's inclusion and against your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. (Contrary to your claim there, "consensus" does not mean "unanimity.") —David Levy 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but actual consensus also implies good faith attempts by all sides and are supposed to take account of reasonable issues that have been raised; they have not done so at all. The people on that page are really just edit warring for various different reasons.- Wolfkeeper 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing but good-faith attempts to discuss the matter and address your concerns.
No offense, Wolfkeeper, but you are the only discussion participant who comes across as dismissive of others' views (via your claims that anyone who disagrees with you is either willfully violating rules or ignorant of what an encyclopedia is). —David Levy 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well, you get stalked for a while, see how you like it.- Wolfkeeper 05:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That response doesn't address the problem. —David Levy 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
By my reckoning the material is discouraged or forbidden by about 6 different policies or guidelines, and really 5P as well.- Wolfkeeper 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There is clear consensus to the contrary. —David Levy 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There can be no true consensus when they've torn up so many policies, if you go down that route then you're talking about wikiality. It's not even encyclopedic content; and they've ignored WP:LEAD, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it fails WP:Consensus, it fails WP:ISNOT, Wikipedia:Content forking, 5P, and there's doubtless canvasing going on behind the scenes... people just sort of pop up, and it's usually the same people. Some of them are clearly actually stalking me, if I log out and make edits they don't appear, if I'm logged in they revert war. I make the same types of edits. They're basically harassing me. Quiddity keeps posting lists of things I've allegedly done wrong, in the middle of discussions, off-topic, and most of it is just factually incorrect or blown completely out of proportion, and taken out of context, just slanderous garbage, he's even collected stuff from Wiktionary. For example I was creating entries on various chemicals, and I hadn't formatted it correctly yet (I was in the middle of editing) and I got comments from an admin there, nothing serious. I carried on editing and the admin left me to it. None of the entries on Wiktionary were removed before or after, but according to Quiddity I've practically been booted off Wiktionary as well. Honestly, these guys editing the slam dunk article are up to no good. They even created a fake RFC just for the sole purpose of harassing me with it, but it's so ridiculous I just laughed at it, none of it stands up to close inspection, if any of it was serious they would have finished it and got me blocked. They're being really scummy.- Wolfkeeper 05:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
1. Your logic is circular; to establish that the other editors are wrong, you continually cite your belief that numerous policies and guidelines have been violated as though this is an incontrovertible fact. Essentially, you assert that "there can be no true consensus" unless everyone agrees with you (because the very act of disagreeing with you can only be indicative of utter contempt for the process).
2. I cannot comment on your allegations other than to note that you've inaccurately described Quiddity's interaction within the Talk:Slam dunk discussion (in which nothing close to a claim that you've "practically been booted off Wiktionary" was made).
I possess no other first-hand knowledge of your interaction with these editors. If you believe that inappropriate activities have occurred, you're welcome to seek intervention in the proper forums. —David Levy 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper: I do not want you to be blocked. I think you do good work in the engineering topics, and you prevent many cranks from getting their pseudoscience in our pages.
What I most want, is for you to acknowledge that there is a diversity of opinion around the statement "Words are, or are not, a suitable topic for an article in an encyclopedia". There are a number of related issues (such as how much quantity of information Wiktionary actually wants, eg this kind of thing is standard there. I'm not saying it is good, I'm saying it is standard). The stalled draft-RfC (which I've only linked to twice at WT:NOTDIC, and once at my talkpage) is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/RfC on Wolfkeeper and words, and I hope an RfC on words (not on you, but using your edits as the main and most prolific examples) will eventually come out of it. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh huh. Why don't I believe you? Oh yeah, for example there is the fact that the RFC currently contains the phrase 'We need Wolfkeeper halted.'
So you're essentially admitting to trying to block me from all articles except technical ones. That's a block.- Wolfkeeper 02:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If I wanted to get you blocked (temporarily), I'd have been pointing out your occasional blatant hostility (eg) to the wikiquette noticeboard. I don't do that, because I don't think doing so would have any effect on your level-of-politeness. If anything, it might make you more aggressive. - Many editors have asked you to be less sarcastic or rude over the years, and it has had no effect. (You even acknowledged your own sarcastic nature in one thread, but I won't try to hunt down the diff).
Given that you still (do you?) refuse to acknowledge the diversity of opinion about Words-as-Articles, some editors have indeed suggested that perhaps you should be prevented from edit-warring your non-majority views into articles. (That would be called a "topic-ban", which as far as I know can only be enforced by arbcom). But: That direction has no appeal to me. I'd much rather convince you that "a few notable words are acceptable topics for entire articles"; and separately, that derived information can be included in articles, and that opinions are varied on whether to have pronunciation and/or etymology in or near the lead section of articles.
I'd much rather convince you, that your current position regarding these issues, is an extreme position, on the far edges of the opinion-spectrum.
By "non-majority" I mean: discussions, and afds for non-stubs, for the last 4 years, have had a majority of editors indicating they do believe that some notable words are suitable topics for encyclopedic articles (that's what most of the examples in the RfC are for).
Also, as Hans pointed out recently, wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abated and wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Act, etc, etc. See also, the hundreds of editors who actually wrote all the articles that you believe do not belong here.
You've prepared an afd for the article negro, for heaven's sake. That's a high-priority article for WikiProject African diaspora. Look again at what the 2 admins said on its talkpage.
You want words separated cleanly from Wikipedia, but the majority of the community that has voiced an opinion thus far, disagrees. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Test3articleEdit

Hi. Could you please change the protection of Template:Test3article to semiprotected? You were the administrator who applied the protection. Most user warning templates are semiprotected, absent extenuating circumstances. --Bsherr (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Test templatesEdit

Hi David Levy. It's been three years since the last discussion occurred regarding possibly redirecting the old test templates. I think, given the amount of time that has passed, it is time to have another discussion to see whether consensus has changed.

There's a whole range of options to consider for these templates, including (1) deleting, (2) redirecting, (3) userfying, (4) merging if some unique functionality remains for the old template, (5) labelling the test templates as deprecated, (6) keeping status quo. I know the old consensus was that there was gain from deleting them, but I'd like to determine whether anyone is indeed still using these templates, and why, so we might determine whether the standardized templates are not meeting a significant need. There are indeed reasons for not keeping the old templates: (1) poor documentation, (2) indescriptive and disorganized naming scheme prone to errors (test1, test1a, test1article, test1n, test1-alt, etc.), and (3) disinterest in updating or improving them.

In fact, maintaining separate templates defeats reaching consensus, the hallmark of Wikipedia. When users disagree about a given article, we don't maintain two versions of the article. Rather we, resolve the differences in a mutually agreeable way. While that's a rule for articles that may not apply to templates as rigorously, the benefits are the same. The benefit here could be a single, improved template, for everyone's use.

All of these issues could be raised in a discussion, and a discussion is necessary to determine whether there is a new consensus. I'd like to renew the conversation to determine which would be best, and I thought that Templates for Discussion would be the most visible place to do it. Could you suggest an alternative, or do you have your own ideas? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi David. I replied to you on my talk page. I've got yours on my watchlist, but if you'd prefer to talk on mine, that works. Since I replied last to mine, it might be easier to talk there. That way, we can keep everything in one place. --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MinorEdit

Appreciated. My edits are marked minor by default and sometimes I forget to uncheck certain edits. Which article or articles brought this to your attention? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you change your default setting, as the reverse error (minor edits not so labeled) would be preferable. —David Levy 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to overstate the importance of my edits. Regarding them all as "minor" seems like a good way to do that. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"...but you actually are misleadingly labeling substantial edits in a manner indicating that they require no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
"...[it] is especially unacceptable, as is failing to include a meaningful edit summary. You've effectively deemed Bkonrad a vandal." —David Levy 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not clear on how whether my own changes are listed as "minor" or else (ostensibly) "major" I have somehow labelled someone, particularly a longtime editor like Bkonrad, a "vandal." If there is some process by which minor edits have such major influence over the status of a particular editor, I would assert that "assumption" has some undue role in that process. I will consider listing my edits as major by default. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(after my talk page) I did not realize that such a precise system for noting vandals would use the virtually arbitrary "minor"/"major" (implied) indicator as its basis. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is." - Applying this principle to the recent case, my notation of "minor" was accurate: Bkonrad deleted a passage I had reinserted from my initial draft version of that page (2005). The merits of his delete were few. His edit was deletionistic and accompanied only by a terse comment calling my writing "grumbling." The difference between his delete and vandalism is too slight to relegate judgment to a simple binary choice between "minor" and "major" (implied). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)Edit

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FYIEdit

Regarding your last !vote @ meta:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Acehnese_Wikipedia, please also consider meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Acehnese (2) Wikipedia. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Pending ChangesEdit

I thought you might be interested in this wonky analysis. I'll put it on the main talk page if you think it's useful, but that discussion is busy enough that I doubt it would help.

When I heard that a 1 v 3 poll had be constructed, I immediately thought how it could be biased and ran some numbers:

With only 1 round of voting

  • 1 - 30
  • 2 - 20
  • 3 - 40 --> keep wins, and option 3 wins
  • 4 - 10

but if you run a second poll and let 1's switch to 2's

  • 2 - 50 (20 plus 30 option 1 votes) -->option 2 wins
  • 3 - 40
  • 4 - 10

...thus assuming all option 1 votes move to option 2, it changed the final results from keep 3 to keep 2!

However... my assumption of the vote distribution was incorrect. There were many more 3's than 2's or 4's. The actual poll looks like this:

  • 1 - 30
  • 2 - 5
  • 3 - 55 keep, and option 3 wins
  • 4 - 10

and even if you run a second poll

  • 2 - 35 (5 +the 30 option 1 votes)
  • 3 - 55 --> option 3 still wins
  • 4 - 10

Thus, the actual results don't lead to this unfair voting paradox.

That doesn't address the consensus issues or generally poor implementation, but it relieved one of my reservations. Ocaasi (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Great Runway DisputeEdit

For info. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, I see you're trying to help mediate with Everard, I don't suppose you could have a word with him over stuff like this? Regards. Strange Passerby (talkcstatus) 06:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback on Wikipedia:In the news/CandidatesEdit

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TalkbackEdit

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 04:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really?Edit

Everard:
This edit was brought to my attention. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with someone, but this does not justify name-calling. Please attempt to remain civil. Thank you. —David Levy 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So it' s ok to attack me, but not for me to respond? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's okay to respond by expressing your disagreement. It isn't okay to engage in name-calling.
Did someone "attack" you in this manner? If so, that wasn't okay either. —David Levy 06:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"I don't think Mr Proudfoot's conduct is exactly up to scratch.". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Right or wrong, that's a criticism of your behavior, not a personal attack. You're welcome to criticise Strange Passerby's conduct in the same manner, but please refrain from name-calling. —David Levy 06:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
He said that he assumes good faith, and that my reverts of cleary vandalism was not good faith. I pointed out an instance where he did not. That's hypocrisy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be sincere disagreement regarding what constitutes obvious vandalism. —David Levy 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, and somehow, he feels that he needs to assume good faith with IP vandals who have no other edits, but doesn't feel the need to assume good faith with me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Has Strange Passerby accused you of acting in bad faith? —David Levy 06:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you read their comments on the ANI page (which are now archived)? Even Euryalus apologized, but Strange Passerby just repatedly accused me of acting in bad faith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I read the entire discussion, and I don't recall any such accusations. —David Levy 07:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Weel, I do. I don't see any point in continuing this. Strange Passerby was obnoxious, that's all I need to say. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see where I expressly accused you of acting in bad faith, Everard. Rather, I said I would assume good faith. It was a comment on what I would do, not on what you had done. Strange Passerby (talkcstatus) 07:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You helped to drive me away for 24 hours, I don't want to participate in any more he said, he said with you. You know what you said. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest then that you stop calling me a "hypocrite" or "obnoxious" if you're serious about "(not wanting) to participate in any more he said, he said". I invite any of David's talk page stalkers to go read the relevant ANI section. It's quite clear what I said. That said, I'd suggest taking this discussion of David's talk page if you wish to continue it — which you say you don't. Best, Strange Passerby (talkcstatus) 07:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dombrovskis imageEdit

Thanks for the new image but I found this one far better than the current one. I was wondering if there was some reason that you chose the current image. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16Edit

  New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize on ITNEdit

Hello, David. Thank you for the cookie. Don't worry. I don't feel any hostility at all. We just happen to disagree on the meaning of the word "awarded" in the ITN blurb. It's perfectly alright. Here's some milk for you. Milk goes well with chocolate chip cookies.   Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rulesEdit

I was actually trying to illustrate an example of "ignore all rules." If it's confusing or if you'd like the page to look more minimalist and serious, no problem. It was a fairly audacious edit on my part. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons of adding 1,000,000 articles to the listEdit

I've opened a discussion to discuss the merits and flaws of reporting French and German Wikipedias as having one million articles.

See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section.

The Transhumanist 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you knowEdit

I got to thinking while doing something with my computer and it was off and realised my comment may confuse [13] Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK editEdit

If you're concerned about the sequence of DYK photos, why don't you participate in the prep sets, queues, and WT:DYK instead of unilaterally changing the main page after a queue is moved there? I find that somewhat disruptive and unfair.RlevseTalk 01:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If visual diversity is your goal, might I suggest you consider swapping the image in the OTD/SA section from the one that has been used for the last two years. It will save you the effort of having to make another fix in a couple of hours when another DYK set with an "architectual" image in scheduled to be loaded by DYKUpdateBot. --Allen3 talk 02:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

ITNEdit

Hey David, just letting you know that there's a discussion about your change of the ITN guidelines (the one you did back in January). The discussion is here. DC TC 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland and ArsenalEdit

Hi,

I don’t know if you wrote today’s featured article, but I’m afraid I’ll have to comment it a bit.

The text says, that Sunderland A.F.C. "remained in the top league for 68 successive seasons, losing the record to Arsenal when they were relegated in 1958."

Arsenal was elected to the First Division after WW I (and there is supposed to have been foul play involved, see "1914–15_Football_League" for starters), so by 1958 Arsenal most definitely did not have 68 successive seasons in top flight. It seems that they achieved this later, since they have been in top flight since 1919, so the wording of the article might be slightly incorrect.

Anyway, I have encountered some strange problems trying to put new content on in Wikipedia, and have not been able to do anything for the last 4 days (!). I would appreciate it if you could look at the problem on my talk pages, and perhaps you might be able to help me with it. I could then put in the 1st and 2nd Division results up to WW II, which I have ready.

Yours sincerely,

Apanuggpak (talk)

aaacckkkEdit

[14] Thanks. I proofread that 3 times and still managed to miss it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4Edit

 
We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "David Levy/Archive4".