User talk:David Levy/Archive5

En dashes and hyphens

Regarding this move, why do you feel a hyphen is correct? Per WP:ENDASH an en dash is the proper dash to use in cases like this, where it is a substitute for the word "and". --Mepolypse (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found Talk:Hanna-Barbera#Hyphen vs En Dash, so we can continue the conversation there instead. --Mepolypse (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to point you to that discussion. In short, we impose such a standard on a construct comprising two independent elements, not on a proper noun referring to a single entity (for which we alter the orthography only if it doesn't reflect common usage). —David Levy 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(I was about to write a comment on the talk page of the article, but if you prefer we can use user talk pages instead. Can we please keep it here though rather than copying everything back and forth?) Who is "we" in the above statement? I see no such exception listed at WP:ENDASH. Are you arguing that there is such an exception (if so, where?) or that there should be? --Mepolypse (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

By "we," I meant "the English Wikipedia."

This isn't an exception; it's an inherent limitation of WP:ENDASH's scope. The wording in question indicates that we use an en dash "to stand for and between independent elements."

In other words, if we were documenting a theorem devised by scientists named Hanna and Barbera, "Hanna–Barbera theorem" would be correct. But contrary to such a scenario, we aren't adopting a term to describe a subject pertaining to the independent elements "Hanna" and "Barbera"; we're referring to a single entity called "Hanna-Barbera."

The company was named after its founders, but the manner in which this occurred (i.e. the orthographic style used) wasn't our decision to make. We ignore the trademark holder's style when it contradicts common usage (as "DIRECTV" does, for example), but "Hanna-Barbera" is the overwhelmingly prevalent form.

WP:ENDASH establishes a consistent house style for terms that otherwise could be correctly (and inconsistently) rendered in multiple ways. It isn't intended to override official names (such as those of organizations), for which formal, consistent styles already exist. —David Levy 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, this limitation in scope should probably be explicitly mentioned in the WP:ENDASH guideline. I would suggest you bring this up at WT:MOS and see if there's consensus for your position, and add this exception to the guideline if there is.

Personally, I doubt most organizations really pay that much attention to which dash they use. I think most would be fine with being represented with either a hyphen or some sort or dash. I find it much more likely that the company uses a hyphen simply because that's what was easiest to generate, rather than this being a conscious decision on their part. I think organizations are likely to case much less about the length of the dash in their names than they are about capitalization of the use of interpuncts (which we always normalize to hyphens AFAIK, such as at WALL-E). For this reason I don't see much problem with normalizing hyphens to en dashes (or the other way around, in other situations) even for proper names.

In this specific case the issue is muddled by the fact that Hanna-Barbera sometimes refers not to the company but to the two individuals in tandem, such as when it is used to describe their work prior to the formation of their company. As such, even if it is decided that a hyphen is appropriate for the company, the use of an en dash seems appropriate for for example Template:The Hanna–Barbera Tom and Jerry shorts (which I moved to its current location prior to finding this objection) as it contains work mostly before 1957. So if we go your way we'd have to use a hyphen in certain places and an en dash in other places. As another example, List of Tom and Jerry cartoons, where I changed all instances to en dashes earlier, should probably use an en dash in the first subheading and a hyphen in the second.

(As a tangent, I note that you used several instances of traditional punctuation above. That's fine on talk pages of course, and this is not a criticism at all, but just in case you're not aware, the MoS recommends logical punctuation in article space. See WP:LQ.) --Mepolypse (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll raise the issue at WT:MOS when I have the time (and if I take too long, feel free to remind me or bypass me completely).

To be clear, I don't view such a replacement as a "problem," but it seems unnecessary and counterintuitive. (The rest of the world—including both the company itself and the general public—writes "Hanna-Barbera," so why should we go out of our way to render the name in a different, unusual style?)

Regarding the use of the term in reference to the two individuals in tandem, I think that we probably should try to avoid doing that (except when quoting others), irrespective of the style. Otherwise, the likelihood of confusion with the company is great. An alternative such as "Hanna and Barbera" or "William Hanna–Joseph Barbera" would be far less ambiguous.

Yes, I am aware that MoS recommends logical punctuation, which I use in articles. On talk pages, I write primarily in American English, excepting some Commonwealth English spellings and conventions that strike my fancy.  :) —David Levy 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you raise it as I feel I may not be able to represent your position correctly. I'll try to remember to remind you if needed.

Regarding the rest of the world, most of it doesn't have a clear style guide, doesn't care about such subtleties, and uses the character that's easiest to type on a keyboard. :-)

Agreed that avoiding "Hanna–Barbera" for pre-company stuff is probably a good way to avoid confusion. There's quite a bit of such content now, for example Tom and Jerry#Hanna-Barbera era (1940–1958). If full names are used it would have to be a spaced en dash (per WP:ENDASH) so "William Hanna – Joseph Barbera". "Hanna and Barbera" seems more manageable.

I've changed it back to "Hanna-Barbera" when referring to the company in the one place I changed it (for now at least). I'll go ahead and change "Hanna-Barbera" to "Hanna and Barbera" when referring to the individuals, and avoid the "Hanna–Barbera" construct all together (for now).

We should possibly be clearer about this distinction in articles like List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera. It should perhaps be renamed List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions to avoid confusion. (I actually first thought that article referred to the individuals.)

Anyway, thanks for the chat, and thanks for explaining your reasons. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Gross misuse of RevDelete

I suggest you read WP:REVDELETE#Misuse. Things like "accidentally attribut[ing] an edit to the wrong user" is NOT covered by ANY of the revision delete rules. Please revert it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you view the redacted edit summary? Because I accidentally named an incorrect user, I regard it as a disruptive allegation. If you disagree, I certainly will revert. But my motive was to avoid defaming an innocent party, not to conceal my error. I apologize for not making this clearer. —David Levy 04:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, I came here to say the same thing. First, we can't use it on our own edits, or where we're involved. Secondly, it's meant to be used only for "grossly offensive" material, per the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Although unintended, I honestly regarded my edit summary as "purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project," which is said to "[include] allegations." But it seems that I've misinterpreted the scope, so I'll revert straight away.

For the record, I appreciate your polite tone, SlimVirgin. —David Levy 05:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming the incorrect person in the edit summary is not a defamation, it's a mistake. The way to correct it is usually to make a trivial edit (for example adding a space to your post) and clarify in the next edit summary, something like "Last edit summary should have read "Jane" not "Bob"". Revision deletion are amongst the most annoying/irritating things on Wikipedia, and they already are bad enough when used within rules. So yes please revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with dummy edits and have performed them on numerous occasions (when the only consequences of the original edits were confusion and self-embarrassment). In this instance, I believed [incorrectly, it appears] that my edit summary constituted the sort of disruption covered by the relevant policy. I thank you for setting me straight, but I would have appreciated a less confrontational approach. —David Levy 05:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, David. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for politely and patiently explaining why my action was inappropriate.  :-) —David Levy 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I noticed through RecentChanges that your talk page is over 300kb. Would you please consider archiving it to reduce page load times? Thanks, Nakon 04:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminding me! —David Levy 05:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion - request decision and closing

Hi David. We had a discussion about the merger of two article over on the ROKS Cheonan talk page. In my view it's obvious that there's no consensus to merge, but given that I started the nomination I thought that it might not be appropriate for me to close it. Moreover I understand that merger discussions are not "votes for merger", so technically someone uninvolved should take a view as to what the correct decision is.

I would appreciate it if you could assist, either in closing the discussion and taking a view as to how we should proceed, or referring this request to someone else who can take that view. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have one new message!

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2011 Alexandria bombing

With all due respect, what makes this the "original article"? --Coptic101 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It was created at 01:21 (UTC). You created the redundant article at 18:59 (UTC). —David Levy 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I am restoring the deleted article in this case. --Coptic101 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing the referenced material from the article. What you call " text copied and pasted from POV fork" is text that incorporates additions from the previous version plus other well referenced material. Please discuss what you don't like on the talk page first. --Coptic101 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Greg L

I see you have encountered Greg L's particular form of abusiveness here. He drove me to stop editing Wikipedia with his Straw Man fallacy attacks and intense violations of WP:FAITH when he argues on the talk pages. I see he has offended quite a deal other editors and yet he is allowed to continue terrorizing would-be dedicated editors. Can not something be done? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Wikipedia essays listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Wikipedia essays. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:Wikipedia essays redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan England Tour 1965

Oops! Thanks for the message. Sorry for the mess. I rather screwed the whole thing up, so your clearing up after me is much appreciated. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting

Note that I chose my words quite carefully: I specifically did not say that Giffords has been killed. I said that nineteen people, including Representative Giffords, have been shot. DS (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I've responded to your comments at User talk:Gyrobo#2011 Tucson shooting, along with some reasons I don't think you should rely on WP:SBE.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?

Feel free to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Cfd all#Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

I noticed your positions on BLP1E on the Jared Lee Loughner article and was wondering if you would give me your opinion on how that rule informs an opinion on whether or not Amanda Knox should have her own article. I have been discussing this for the past few weeks but this debate seems to churn up the same repeat players with their entrenched positions.LedRush (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

re: the RfD on Portal:Wikipedia essays

I'm confused. I did type 'Portal:Wi' into the search field. What I got back was this (same as yesterday as far as I can tell). Portal:Wikipedia essays is nowhere on the list.

Unfortunately, your screenshots are blocked by my company's webfilter (and as the security geek who lobbied for the darned thing, I can't very well go around it) so I can't see what you are doing that's different from what I did. When you have a minute, could you please ping me back with an explanation? Or if the pictures aren't too big, could I trouble you to email them to me? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that. WikipediaMail doesn't accomodate attachments. I'll try connecting from home over the weekend. Thanks. Rossami (talk)

Ahhh. No need to send. I understand now. I had never noticed that the prefill function presents different results than the actual search engine. Regardless, I think that might be suppressable - I vaguely remember a template that can be added to a redirect so it doesn't pop up in the prefill. I'll try to find it but I don't do that much with those templates (and it's hard to test because I believe the template has to be out there long enough to get captured in a routine reindexing). If you and I can't quickly find it, we might have to ask for help. Rossami (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think {{R unprintworthy}} might do it. I've added it to the Portal:Wikipedia essays page as a test. Maybe test it in a few hours and then again in a few days? Rossami (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having cache problems (IE 7 with some apparent bugs). Does it look like "unprintworthy" is working to you yet? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP, content v. splitting

Thank you for your response at the merge discussion. I would rather not get into a highly public debate over my own perception of these linked guidelines, but still feel the need to defend. Before I did finally go back and check what those guidelines recommend today, I had read them a few times many months ago and took from them that forking is generally bad because it uses two articles to represent divergent views on the same subject, and splitting is benign and encouraged: we split content such as History of Massachusetts from Massachusetts because it is a divergent topic and there is a large amount to be covered that may be of less interest to someone looking for a general treatment of a subject. That is common encyclopedic practice.

After just now reading both afresh, I still have my opinion intact, that is that the article about a violent assailant only known for one event, in the first few days or weeks following that event, is entirely tied to that event. Reliable sources writing about the event and assailant are both focusing on the moments of the tragedy and what transpired surrounding those moments. The content is viewed as separated by those who wish to (and do) quickly move to write a biography of the assailant in the first few days; I view it as intrinsic, the reliable sources (almost always journalists) are still writing about the event and its aftermath. Splitting may be inevitable in the months ahead, however I take the view that BLP1E should be revised to address this issue.

I didn't/do not mean that a separate article is a POV fork, but is still a type of content fork, and that a minimum of one week of gathering the best information from highly reliable sources should pass before the assailant is treated in a biography. A move to split with arguments showing that what would move out of the main event article does not represent a (AGF) content fork would need to be supported by discussion, rather that the situation at hand where an article is quickly and prematurely created which then forces reasonable editors who disagree with that move to have to state their case for a merge. A minimum one week moratorium on splitting to gather the best biographical material and avoid potential forking from a discussion of the motives and aftermath surrounding the actual event is what I am suggesting. I appreciate your taking time to read this, I don't really have the motivation to pursue my idea at BLP but would support it. Sswonk (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad splits can and do occur, and I respect your opinion that this is such a split (and that policy should be changed to delay/prevent it). The problem, it appears, is that you're classifying a bad split (such as one in which an element not warranting a separate article receives one) as a "content fork." That isn't how Wikipedia uses the term.

For example, it would be a bad idea to split a Red M&M's article from the M&M's article. But that wouldn't constitute a content fork, despite the fact that red M&M's are a subset of M&M's. The creation of a second article about M&M's as a whole (the same subject) would be a content fork. (And the creation of a Red M&M's article intended to convey a more positive or negative presentation of red M&M's would constitute a POV fork.) —David Levy 16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid of this, that is just as you did at the merge discussion you are underestimating my ability to read the guidelines. That is why I posted this here, and there is no reason to copy everything over to my talk when I am explaining myself to you, just leave it here please. I will state one final time: the content is about one thing, the articles are pertaining to one thing. That is the event. Not writing specifically about this event, in general that will be the case in the immediate aftermath of a violent incident caused by an individual. The biography should default to a redirect in the initial days following such a tragedy, because that is prudent and because the reliable sources during that time are nearly all journalists who are reporting on the event, and their discussion of the individual is always about what that individual did. It looks like it will be difficult to get you to understand what I mean here, words are not doing the idea justice. Honestly, today ends my fourth year here at Wikipedia, and through judicious editing I have kept my edit count low while still contributing several articles, maps and photographs without having to tweak each one ten times and running up my edit count. I really don't think I deserve being told yet again that I don't understand "how Wikipedia uses the term". Defaulting to redirect initially will also forestall any actual POV forking that may occur if a swath of humanity ever feels one of these vile violent actors is somehow justified, which I would not put past some of the conscienceless people I have found commenting on news websites in the past few years, for example. We should "get it", and never allow people who "don't get it" to have a soapbox which one of these article may show potential for. David, really I do not need another admonishment about what I don't get about content forking. I am applying the term to the unsettled situation surrounding a violent attack. I am not talking about splitting because, well, I am not talking about splitting. Please respect my ability to interpret and describe the phrases involved as I have. Sswonk (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The article is about Jared Lee Loughner. It's reasonable to assert that only the event (and not Loughner himself) warrants an article, but that doesn't mean that the article is about the event.

2. Again, we're debating semantics. As I've stated repeatedly, this has no bearing on whether the article should exist.

3. You claim that I don't "understand." Obviously, the feeling is mutual. The difference is that I'm not instructing you to stop expressing your view.

If we have to agree to disagree, that's fine. But it's frustrating when you argue your opinion while simultaneously telling me that it's downright insulting for me to argue mine.

4. I haven't even looked at your contribution history. I don't judge users by their edit counts or account registration dates. —David Levy 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for reading and also for volunteering with the project. If anything is unresolved it is that you think I think it is insulting for you to argue your opinion. I am only trying to get you to stop telling me I don't understand what is currently defined as content forking. I don't know what else to say. You keep saying I don't know what "content forking" is and I keep saying, "I do know what content forking is, and I am expanding on it and applying the gist of its definition to this type of premature divergence of articles during the initial days of reporting by reliable sources" and then you still say I don't understand. I guess it is like two different languages, we need an interpreter? I believe you, certainly, that you don't care about edit counts. I simply felt that if I can be told by you to read some project guideline and then I say I already have, here is what I think, and then you profess what I think is not the true way Wikipedia (big place) uses the term and tell me a story about m&m's, that you are talking down to me in some way. Don't worry about saying you are not, but that is just a word to the wise that the way you approached my promoting a change to the policy seemed condescending to me. I am now fairly satisfied that is not the case, that you are taking my words into consideration and not rejecting them due to some advanced intelligence you feel you possess, but that you simply disagree. I thank you again for taking time to read this, best to let it pass for now in my view and for the good of the project agree to disagree on all counts. Sswonk (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary jigsaw logo

Any chance you can upload the anniversary jigsaw piece logo to the wiki as a separate file so we can include it in its full 135x155px glory in Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not Scrooge-like

I saw your comment on the main page talk, regarding the code I posted. I don't appreciate being referred to as having an "Ebenezer Scrooge-like attitude". I was responding to the fact that I started getting picked apart for helping myself and others to do something. My comments were perfectly valid, and being compared to a cold hearted (i can't use that word here) frankly offends me. I'd report you for a personal attack, which it is (comment on the content, not the contributor), but it wouldn't do a blind bit of good since you're an admin. I simply think it would be wise if we avoided each other from now on. BarkingFish 12:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, that wasn't intended as a serious insult. (I sincerely apologize that you took it as one.) It was intended as a humorous way of saying "please lighten up" (as Scrooge did).

Secondly, no one criticised you for providing the code advice. It was the manner in which you went about it (referring to people's work as "stupid," "piss poor" and pointless, demanding perfection, etc.) that ruffled feathers.

Thirdly, please note that when it comes to festivities in these parts, I'm one of the admins most often accused of being a killjoy. Take that for what it's worth.

But fourthly, on the topic of user rights, please don't think for a moment that I would attempt to exploit my sysop bit as a means of getting away with conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian.

In short, your help is appreciated, and I'm sorry that you were offended. Take care. —David Levy 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Jack Sebastian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you hate him so much?

You've replaced the ITN pic just after about 4 hours. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Smiley emoticon noted. (:

Regarding the general issue, past discussions have shown consensus that we generally should illustrate the newest item when feasible. Variety is important too (and we wouldn't want four hours of one image followed by two days of another), but we can revert to an earlier image if a subsequent one stagnates (especially if neither item appears at the top by this point, rendering that aspect irrelevant). —David Levy 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Singular and plural nouns

I'd be interested to see the evidence on which you posted this editorial gloss in ITN: This is correct in Irish English; please do not change it to "wins". Your note is contrary to the practice of the Irish media. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that I had an inaccurate understanding of the manner in which collective nouns are treated in certain English varieties (including Irish), which evidently is more complicated than I (an American) realized.

Someone wrote the item with the word "win," which seemed correct (based upon past experience with sport-related items, to which I mistakenly believed the same rules applied).

I apologize for the error. I just wanted to prevent the back-and-forth "corrections" that have occurred on numerous occasions. —David Levy 17:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. Of course, the easiest way of avoiding such "back-and-forth corrections" would be if ITN had the sense to report past events in a past tense... Kevin McE (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come to agree with you that we should switch to a past-tense format, thereby reducing the section's stylistic similarity to a news ticker (in the hope that people will stop mistaking it for one).

Would you be interested in collaborating on a formal proposal? —David Levy 19:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to: the use of the present historic is not compatible with formal tone. We have today the additional oddity of A becomes PM after B resigns: present after present! Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In the News

Better, thanks for that. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

FS proposal

I wrote the FS proposal. It very explicitly stated the location:

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_156#Featured_sounds_vote

If there was any ambiguity, that too is Sven's fault: he opened it to voting early, before I had finished revising my final technical proposal, giving me about an hour to finish it up, and replace his own lead-in to the poll, which was about how he was opening it up because there was some off-topic discussion about FLs happening, so he needed to open it now, but he knew it was doing to fail... basically, a completely negative lead-in, outright saying that it was doomed in it. (and violating my explicitly stated promise that discussion would be open for a week before voting started, to deal with any ambiguities or other problems. This is not over a single incident, this is about him going behind my back for about the 5th time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please see my reply at Talk:Main Page. —David Levy 23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is moot

Because it's not going to get any coding at all now. Thanks, Sven, you fucking ass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake refinery explosion image

Thanks for clearing it up from the mainpage - however, you may want to point your Commons admin powers over to File:Refinery_explosion,_Japan_2011_earthquake.jpg. If you take a look at Dannychoo's flickr stream, he's been posting TV screencaps etc and claiming they're CC licensed, I'd do an external link check to make sure there's no other copyvios. - hahnchen 22:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks that an anon has tagged another image already as disputed licensing - File:Japan_Earthquake.jpg - hahnchen 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted both images (and de-transcluded them across the Wikimedia projects, excepting protected pages that I was unable to edit). Thanks very much! —David Levy 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose Some Images for Deletion

Hey there,

I would like some images of mine removed from Wikipedia/Wikimedia; I don't want to be associated with them, and they sometimes come up when my name is Googled. They also serve no real purpose, and are not being used on any Wikis and do not contribute anything useful. I was wondering if you or any other admin could delete them. The images in question are:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DirtyDick's.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CowDefecating.jpg

Thanks,
--MosheA (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Christopher photo

Yes, thanks for that. The one in the article infobox is really fuzzy. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TBS

Thanks for tidying that up - I didn't realize the history had been left behind, given the typos by VH2. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reverting the title change!  :) —David Levy 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Those Brits...

Why don't they know how to spell properly? :)

Thanks for the fix. NW (Talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, no problem. This particular convention always seems jarring to me too.  :) —David Levy 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting

Part of the reason I move-protect titles like this when I put them on ITN is to prevent pretty much exactly what you just did. Whenever somebody creates an article on a current without a clear and obvious title, everybody has their own opinion on which of the dozen redirects should be the title and I think an article should stay at whatever title it's protected at until a consensus can be established that it should be at a different title. I'm not criticising you, but I would suggest that it's unwise to move an article on the Main Page (especially a protected one) without at least a rough consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment, but this was a purely grammatical issue. Our naming convention (for which there is better than rough consensus) is to refer to such an event via singular terminology (i.e. "shooting", not "shootings"). The article was titled accordingly until someone moved it without discussion or explanation.

This is quite different from the type of argument to which you refer, which typically pertains to such matters as whether to describe the event as a "shooting," "massacre" or "rampage." I would never unilaterally rename a page (move-protected or otherwise) in such a circumstance. I merely corrected a simple formatting error, just as I do whenever I see "2024" or "May 2024" needlessly appended to a title. This is not controversial. —David Levy 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image for ITN

Hi David, you're good with images. Anything you can do to clean up File:Gbagboci.jpg so it's useful on ITN? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gbagboci cropped.jpg

Hello! Apart from cropping (which I just did), what do you have in mind? At 100px, the noise is not problematic. —David Levy 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, apparently not. I've already added it to ITN and it looks better than I thought it would. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed. I substituted the lossless crop.  :) —David Levy 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello David, Could you please review my request for the reviewer permission. It should be right here. Thanks and cheers. mauchoeagle 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Holly Robinson

David. Dave? Davey-boy? <.< Yea...look, I'm so not up for an edit war. Just read me, real quick. Holly Robinson is a name that refers to two different subjects. Arguably, it refers to one subject more than another because of a surname change. Furthermore, any claims of greater notoriety between the two subjects strike me as biased and unverifiable. Therefore, I chose the simplest and most fair alternative to what I adequately termed a biased redirect and needless tagging: One dab page for both articles. This way, there's no fighting over the redirect—believe me, that will happen otherwise—and less confusion.

Now, if you (or anyone else) wants to continue a contentious status quo of linking to one subject whilst, ahem, hedging your bets with tags on both, (meaning, in essence, that you expect the redirect will be fought over,) well.... go ahead. I don't care enough about any of this to bother warring. I'd hope an admin, of all users, would appreciate and prefer a fair solution to the alternative I just laid out, but whatever. Do as you will. Cheers. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (to which I linked in my edit summary)? Your description of the situation is highly inaccurate.

Per the above consent, I've reverted. —David Levy 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I disagree, but oh well. And my mistake, you didn't revert my edits to Holly Robinson (comics). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bold title

Ok, I read the pages you mentioned in this edit, but I really don't see why the article's title cannot be included in the first sentence...perhaps not bolded, but still, why not included at all? See for example Hurricane Allen, Tropical Storm Allison, Tornado, 2006 Westchester County tornado, etc. All are featured or good articles, and all have a bolded, restated title. I highly doubt that in the event of weather events restated titles create "very awkward phrasing" like is mentioned in WP:SBE, but I would agree they are descriptive enough not to be bolded. So why exactly can the title not be restated in the case of weather events? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Past weather events of this magnitude have formal or widely accepted names. The ongoing event doesn't (yet). The article's title is merely our description; it carries no significance outside its use in that context.

The previous wording was awkward, as it conveyed that the "tornado outbreak is ... [a] tornado outbreak." —David Levy 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can go with that...but it still seems kinda weird for an intro as it is right now (to me it sounds like a first sentence I would hear on a televised news story about the event). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok...

please tell me where to discuss this then... It looked like the right page for this request...--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I am now sure that what I did was right, so I reverted you.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[replies at User talk:Müdigkeit] —David Levy 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency at ITN...

With regards to this. Are you sure? I don't particularly remember that as being the norm. I was trying to achieve consistency within the template as it stands, see the John Paul blurb, (is beatified). I note this as another editor has brought it up at WP:ERRORS. Woody (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

After a long period of inconsistency, at some point (last year?), we began favoring the longer link format in such cases, for the reason noted. I think that this might have been discussed on one talk page or another.

My apologies for overlooking the Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II link, which I've modified accordingly. —David Levy 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone at ITN has discussed it at some point. Good to know, it seems we're all sorted now so I'll remember that if it pops up again in the future. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed my comment

Man, this is the third time in the last week or so that this has happened: [1]

What the hell? The other two times weren't your fault, but... ugh!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how that happened. That it's occurred three times in the last week leads me to wonder whether there might be some sort of glitch in the system intended to detect edit conflicts. In any case, I sincerely apologize for failing to notice this. —David Levy 23:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Of possible relevance is the specific sequence of events on my end. After clicking "Save page," I realized that I'd overlooked a second instance of the page title, so I clicked the stop button, made the additional change and clicked "Save page" again. I didn't know whether the first attempt had gone through, but an edit conflict notice should have appeared if it did. It seems that for some reason, the system correctly merged my original edit (which did go through) with yours, but when I made my second submission, instead of informing me of an edit conflict, it simply saved the page with the content appearing in my window (which, of course, didn't include your message). —David Levy 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that I was wondering about myself. I wonder if we should bring this up on WP:VPT?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt.

I don't know whether it's related, but a strange glitch occurred earlier this week. Conan O'Brien had his beard shaved, so I reverted his article's infobox to the most recent beard-free photograph. I then noticed that the caption (which I'd copied from an earlier revision of the article) contained an unnecessary link to the New York City article, so I switched to the unlinked text "New York" and clicked "Save page." I then decided that the text should read "New York City," so I clicked the stop button, added "City" and clicked "Save page" again. The second submission went through normally. But about two minutes later, the first submission (made before the one that already had been saved) was processed, resulting in the removal of the word "City." (My aborted first submission somehow became an edit to the revision stemming from my second submission.) Upon realizing this, I undid the errant change, noting that a glitch had occurred. Page saves and related functions had been extremely laggy that day, so I assumed that it was caused by whatever problem was slowing things to a crawl.

I haven't noticed any similar issues between then and now, and I certainly hope that I haven't unwittingly caused damage elsewhere. —David Levy 00:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

whoops!

Sorry, thanks for the note. Thought it was a combined city team...don't know much about soc...football :) RxS (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Maltese divorce referendum, 2011

I'm not aware of any particular discussion. It may just be a de facto convention adopted by consensus. However, you could poke around WikiProject Elections and Referendums, which may have had a discussion on the matter. Also, User:Nightstallion is very involved in election and referendum articles and he may know. – Zntrip 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Gruevski cropped.jpg

If you compare mine and yours, you will notice a distinct difference in clarity. And the one I uploaded is just 7kb, not much bigger than yours. I was wondering if there was some necessity in uploading slightly smaller, and less clearer, version? I know the pic is linked to the original uncropped image but it still looks a bit blurry on Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

To clarify, I don't do this to reduce the upload's filesize, which is of no consequence in this context.

My goal is to optimize the visual quality of the image displayed on the main page. I usually do so by starting with the earliest generation available (in this case, the original, uncropped image), creating a crop and resizing it in Adobe Photoshop with the "Bicubic Sharper" method (ideal for reduction) and saving it as a JPEG via IrfanView (which often entails experimenting with different compression settings). I sometimes apply one or more filters or otherwise modify these steps as the circumstances dictate.

I then perform a head-to-head comparison with the MediaWiki-generated thumbnail from the main page (not the raw upload) to ensure that my result is superior. In this instance, I observed only a reduction in JPEG artifacts (as is typical), not in sharpness. JPEG artifacts can create an illusion of added detail, so that might be a factor.

Also, are you comparing the thumbnails displayed under "File history"? If so, please note that MediaWiki uniformly displays these at a height of 120px. The file that I uploaded is 100px in height, so it looks blurry there (because it's being blown up by the browser). —David Levy 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I just applied a filter to sharpen the image. While this is the artificial insertion of apparent detail (not the retention of actual detail), it does look good. From now on, I'll routinely explore this option (which I've generally applied to particularly blurry images). —David Levy 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans

Hi David,

As a non sports-follower myself, I understand your puzzlement.

The point about Le Mans is that it's a 24 hour endurance event. This is long enough to be a trial, just about short enough that it's possible to spectate for the whole event. This has given rise in turn to a huge carnival that revolves around the race (and literally, a carnival on-site). It's a bigger race for spectating than any similar event, partly because of the length, also because of the size of the circuit. It turns into a vast festival campsite for the weekend, largely filled with the British who have driven down for the event from the Channel ferries. This in turn is the cavalcade - modern Aston Martins & Ferraris chasing after 1920s Bentleys, some of which were original competitors.

The race is almost never decided at the finish line. Generally it's the night shift where it's won or lost. It's not about being fastest, it's about actually getting to the end. Teams have some leeway for how fast they will drive each lap and this affects how likely they are to have their cars break down overnight, and whether they can be repaired in time to keep up. No point in thrashing up a lead in the first few hours if it means a lack of fuel or engine later on.

A Grand Prix is a few hours and will announce a winner afterwards. A rally series runs for a week and followers (who can rarely keep up with each day's stages) are mostly watching the leaderboard at the end of each day. For Le Mans though, the game is to watch the whole race from start to finish, and that needs advance notice.

There are very few sporting events worldwide that are anything like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to write this thoughtful, detailed response.

I understand (probably better now than before) how the event differs from most other races. What I'm not seeing is a distinction of relevance to ITN.

If this were Wikinews (or if the section's purpose were to report news), I would agree that this event should be treated differently from other races. But that simply isn't the case. Providing "advance notice" of events undoubtedly is helpful to interested parties, but isn't what ITN is for. Other websites, whose missions differ from ours, surely have this covered.

While we pride ourselves on our ability to provide up-to-date coverage of topics, we're still an encyclopedia, not a breaking news website. So if a bombing occurs, we don't rush to post an item in ITN before key details are known. We wait until an encyclopedic level of information is available. And when it comes to sport competitions, we usually post items after the victors have been determined.

I understand your point about the winner not being decided at the finish line, but unlike a news ticker, ITN isn't based upon a principle of urgency; it's based upon encyclopedia articles' quality. As a result, it isn't uncommon for a sport item to be posted days after the event's conclusion (or not posted at all).

If we'd added the item when the race began, this would have meant linking to an encyclopedia article inherently lacking key information (and also lacking information that should already have been written, as noted in the discussion). So what would that have left use with? A news report. While admittedly useful, this is the mission of Wikinews and other news websites, not us. —David Levy 23:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt we will list the Olympic opening ceremony under ITN. If we list that, and we list that before it happens (i.e. if any sort of fore-warning is seen as within ITN's remit - maybe they are simply outside it under WP:CRYSTAL), then we ought to list the start of Le Mans, and the start of the Tour de France or the Americas Cup too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, we do. But we don't list it before it happens, normally only when it begins and only if the article is updated (which it almost always is). WP:OTHERSTUFF is a really bad excuse for this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 18, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up after me at T:ITN. RxS (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Why was this de-wikilinked unilaterally?Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of leading to an article about the office itself, Prime Minister of Lebanon redirects to List of Prime Ministers of Lebanon. While this is the customary placeholder when no article about the office has been written, it isn't particularly relevant to the ITN blurb (which previously had every word other than "forms" linked). —David Levy 16:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you copied and pasted this question from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (where you posted it approximately a minute earlier). In the future, please inform editors of such redundancies (so they can respond on both pages). Thanks. —David Levy 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But informing no?

I realised later that i may have been better directly. will do though.Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the list of Lebanese Prime Ministers is informative (from a historical standpoint), but it has little pertinence to the item (which relates specifically to Najib Mikati and a current event). —David Levy 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Still can we put that to consensus instead of a unilateral removal\?Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus against linking to an article that neither provides information of direct relevance to the ITN blurb nor clarifies a potentially unfamiliar/ambiguous term. As discussed here, some editors (with whom I disagree) believe that we should be even more restrictive.

We usually link political offices when they lead to articles about the offices themselves (which provide background information that aids readers' understanding of the ITN items), but we usually do not link to lists of office holders (which, while useful, add little value in this context).

In the past, such links have been removed without controversy, as have links to "Prime Minister/President of _____" articles containing little information. (Last week, I de-linked Prime Minister of Turkey, noted this in the aforementioned discussion, and received no complaints.)

Of course, if you believe that I've erred in this instance, you're welcome to initiate a discussion at Talk:Main Page. —David Levy 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck

Hi David, I've left a reply to you at Talk:Main Page#Did you know ... that the f-word did not begin as an acronym, and thank you for engaging me in some interesting discussion. Ultimately, I want to do the same as you, and every inch of my personal beleifs would love to do it, but I'm crippled by a hideous sense of politeness. So I've elected to leave a big fuck title on your talk page! Thanks for letting me know about this! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome!

For the record, "crippled by a hideous sense of politeness" accurately describes the manner in which I generally conduct myself in my day-to-day life. I rarely use expletives, and I'm often teased about that.

However, the word "fuck" doesn't offend me. Context is key. Your playful use on my talk page is entirely different from saying "Fuck you!" to someone. Such a distinction is equally applicable to the encyclopedic use of a profanity (not directed at anyone) on the main page. —David Levy 17:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a really good response about WP's liberal bias, and how being couteous in how we choose to display material, rather than censoring would help counter this, and then my browser timed out and lost it all. Suffice to say, if I'm willing to use that sort of language for something like that, maybe I should soften my position... Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of Euro on ITN

Hi David. I'm just curious why conversions are given in Euros. Considering the site is dedicated to those who speak English, wouldn't it make more sense to convert to Pounds Sterling or US Dollars? Hot Stop (c) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), "conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling." I selected the euro because it doesn't favor a single country and already had been present in the section (with an explanatory link) since 30 June. —David Levy 17:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, I suppose it'd be contentious if you chose Pounds over Dollars or vice versa. Thanks for the quick response. Hot Stop (c) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, if I'd selected U.S. dollars, this might have been viewed as self-favoritism (because I'm American). —David Levy 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan in the News

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Talk:Main Page#South Sudan "secession".
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bolding article title

Thanks for this. I wasn't aware of MOS:BOLDTITLE. --Doradus (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Main-page talk expunge from history?

There's a worrying entry that TCO removed with an edit-summary that's likely to attract attention. The entry mentioned someone by name a few hours ago. Any chance you could expunge it from the edit-history? Tony (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 09:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Tony (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. —David Levy 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Further main page discussion

Not sure if you've seen it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features. Thought it might interest you. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! —David Levy 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiLove

SwisterTwister has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Regarding the first sentence of 2011 Horn of Africa famine - while I agree with the spirit of the MOS, isn't it true that almost all Wikipedia articles begin with the same format? For example, related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm somewhat concerned about the lack of consistency here. JimSukwutput 23:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is quite valid. As noted at WP:SBE, the problem is widespread because editors mistakenly emulate the style used for subjects with formal or commonly accepted names. All of the leads cited as examples are improperly formatted, so I'll correct them. —David Levy 00:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, I think a bold title might be appropriate specifically for 2011 Horn of Africa famine. The reason is this - a famine is technically occurring only in a few specific provinces of southern Somalia, while a severe food crisis is affecting the entire region. The article currently covers both the famine and the food crisis, as they are closely related and tend to be regarded as part of the same event in official reports. In that sense, the title "2011 Horn of Africa famine" is not really descriptive, and it needs to be clear that the article (and the name as used by many news sources) is not just about the famine, but about the food crisis issues in the rest of the region as well. To accommodate this, I think the following would be a better introduction:

"The 2011 Horn of Africa famine refers to the famine occurring in several provinces of southern Somalia and the ongoing food crisis in the rest of the Horn of Africa region, [...]".

Thoughts? JimSukwutput 21:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Based upon the above, it seems that the current title fails to fully describe the article's subject. Therefore, it should be changed to something that does. I suggest 2011 Horn of Africa food crisis. (The famine is part of the overall food crisis, yes?) —David Levy 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed for some time in the article's talk page. I was the one who moved the page to its current title (from "2011 Horn of Africa drought") two weeks ago, after three other users proposed the change. The main rationale is this: while it's not true that the entire Horn of Africa is under a famine, it's also not true that the entire Horn of Africa is under only a "food crisis". Technically, a famine is a famine,not a food crisis. So either we ignore the less serious parts of the issue, or we ignore the more serious parts of the issue. Under that rationale, I (and other users) opted for focusing on the famine. This has also become the most common name in the news media. There are 127 articles about "2011 Horn of Africa famine" and 38 about "Horn of Africa food crisis" from my Google News search, so WP:TITLE presents another reason for the current title. JimSukwutput 22:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Famine" is defined as "extreme and general scarcity of food, as in a country or a large geographical area." Not every food crisis is a famine, but every famine is a food crisis (a particularly severe one). The phrase "only a food crisis" simply isn't accurate. It's just that the term "famine" usually is used when a food crisis reaches that level of severity.

"Famine" probably generates more Google News hits because the news media are focusing primarily on the famine (because of the aforementioned severity), not on the overall food crisis. —David Levy 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The current article uses the official UN definitions for those terms, and UN explicitly makes a distinction between "crisis" and "famine/catastrophe". How these terms are used by the public is obviously vastly different, but that is not relevant to the UN definitions. For example, we call the 2006 crisis a crisis, even though a lot of people would describe it as a famine. JimSukwutput 22:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's reasonable for us to reflect the UN's determinations (and avoid using the term "famine" if the UN hasn't determined that a particular situation rises to that level).

A "food crisis" becomes a "famine" (as defined by the UN) when it reaches a particular level of severity. Therefore, it makes much more sense for us to use "food crisis" as a blanket term than it does to use "famine" as one (thereby seemingly elevating the situation's severity in areas not assigned the "famine" label by the UN).

And it appears that the UN treats the situation in precisely this manner. According to this UN article, "the spread of the famine conditions highlights the seriousness of the food crisis facing internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Mogadishu." The UN is referring to the situation as a "food crisis," with certain areas reaching "famine conditions." We should do the same. —David Levy 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an example of the many meanings that the term "food crisis" have. It can refer to a general lack of food, or it can refer to a particular level of food insecurity. Note that the second meaning is what we are really concerned about - often, we have cases where there is an abundance of food but many people do not have the means to purchase them. In that case we have a "crisis in food security" but not a "food crisis" in the sense that food is lacking. And, in terms of levels of food insecurity, the UN (using the FEWS NET system) notes a difference between crisis and famine, as shown in this image.

I think this is a contentious point, as we can see from the debates in the article's talk page, and I don't think we're gonna settle it any time soon. I also think it's a relatively minor point, as long as we clearly explain the situation in the article. So, back to the original question - do you think my proposal is an improvement over the current format? JimSukwutput 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it addresses the problem. The term "famine" doesn't accurately refer to the areas in which the food crisis hasn't reached that level.

When tasked with referring to the overall situation (including famine and non-famine areas) the UN chooses to label it a "food crisis" with "famine conditions" (applying the lowest highest common denominator on the scale and explaining that certain areas exceed this level), so I don't understand how this can be considered improper under the UN's terminology. It certainly is more accurate and less misleading than referring to the entire situation as a "famine" (and then trying to explain that some areas haven't reached that level of severity).

The image to which you linked illustrates exactly what I described above: varying levels of severity (which are numbered and color-coded accordingly). A "food crisis" becomes a "food emergency" and then a "famine" when it reaches particular levels of severity. That's the distinction. —David Levy 23:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have examples of the UN explicitly stating that the region is under a food crisis situation with famine conditions?

The image does not illustrate that a famine is a type of crisis (in terms of food insecurity), just as it does not say that a famine is a type of "none" or "stressed". These levels are understood to be mutually exclusive. It is of course true that food insecurity must first become a food crisis, then an emergency and then a famine. That does not tell you that an emergency or a famine is considered a food crisis; in fact, it is strong evidence against that interpretation. JimSukwutput 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I cited such an example. In the linked article, the UN states that "the spread of the famine conditions highlights the seriousness of the food crisis facing internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Mogadishu."

I realize that the terms have distinct meanings. I'm pointing out that because some term must be used to describe the overall situation (which encompasses varying levels on the scale), the UN decided to use the lowest highest common denominator and explain that certain areas have reached higher levels of severity. While not perfect, this is significantly less flawed than the opposite (which appears to be our only other realistic option). We currently refer to a food crisis as a "famine," which is more wrong than the alternative.

And UN conventions aside, my proposed solution also reflects the terms' plain English meanings (under which any famine inherently is a crisis). —David Levy 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that a "crisis" is the LCD is precisely what I'm disagreeing with here. I believe that under UN definitions, a food crisis and a famine is considered mutually exclusive, as evidenced by their usage of the IPC scale. They will not always follow this standard when writing news articles to the public, especially given that a food crisis can refer to a lack of food rather than a level of food insecurity. But there is strong evidence that they consider "crisis" and "famine" to be mutually exclusive by the IPC scale they use. You will notice that among the five phases, the 1st and 2nd levels are clearly mutually exclusive with any other.

As for your second point, I don't think it's obvious that in daily usage, a famine is inherently a crisis. Let me just cite this recent example of a user saying that the "famine grew into a crisis". JimSukwutput 00:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that under the UN's formal terminology, these terms have distinct, non-overlapping meanings. I erred in writing "lowest common denominator," as I actually meant "highest common denominator." And by that, I'm merely referring to the worst conditions experienced by all of the affected areas. (I'm not implying that the scale's categories overlap.)

You note above that "they will not always follow this standard when writing news articles to the public," and that's precisely my point. We're writing an article for the public, and we're faced with the same dilemma that they were: what to call the overall situation (including famine and non-famine areas). Either way, our title will contain a term not currently applicable to some areas (according to the UN's formal terminology), so we need to decide which option is less bad.

I believe that the UN made a logical decision (because all of the affected areas have met or exceeded a "food crisis"), and I feel that it's sensible for us to follow suit. While not ideal, referring to a famine as a "food crisis" is preferable to referring to a food crisis as a "famine."

I must say that I find the quoted statement (that the "famine grew into a crisis") rather odd. A crisis (as defined in the English language) is "a condition of instability or danger," which obviously applies to a famine. —David Levy 01:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we will err regardless of what term we use. The difference is between overstating and understating the crisis, and while you seem to think the latter is preferable, I find the opposite better. This is very much a matter of personal preference; I don't think Wikipedia has any specific standards regarding whether it's better to overstate or understate a particular issue (correct me if I'm wrong). The only relevant policy I know of is to generally use the most common term (as you've said, we're writing to the public), and based on my observations the entire event is generally referred to as a famine than as a food crisis. The Google News figures I cited above support this claim, though of course as you claim they are not conclusive evidence.

Some slightly irrelevant comments on the usage of the word "crisis". As I understand it (and English is not my first language, so correct me if I'm wrong), the word crisis is often associated with a lot of uncertainty. When applied to food insecurity, then, it may be appropriate to describe a situation where food supply is restricted for some people, but where malnutrition and death rates are not yet high, as a "crisis". However, by the time the problem has turned into a famine, the food insecurity issues are widespread and ongoing; in other words, the uncertainty may very well be gone and it may not be appropriate to describe the situation as a crisis. This is obviously personal opinion, but I think it is not as clear-cut as you might think that a famine is inherently a crisis in daily usage. JimSukwutput 01:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not aware of a specific policy for such a scenario (which is atypical). But I know that we generally seek the term that most closely applies to all of relevant entities, even if it isn't the most common. For example, see the Peafowl article. In the English language, "peacock" is the most common name, by far, for these bird species. But in correct usage, that term refers strictly to males. So we've titled the article "Peafowl," a much less common term (by a ratio of approximately 40:1, based on Google hits) that accurately encompasses both peacocks (males) and peahens (females).

In my view, the term "food crisis" most closely applies to all of the relevant entities, given the fact that every affected area either currently is in that state or previously reached (and then exceeded) it.

You're correct that the word "crisis" can convey uncertainty, but that connotation is separate from the one most applicable to this context. As a native English speaker, I interpret "food crisis" to mean "situation in which people are imperiled by an inadequate availability of safe food."

(Incidentally, your English is excellent; I never would have suspected that it isn't your first language.)

I understand your point about understating the situation's severity, but it's likely that an overwhelming majority of our readers are unfamiliar with the IPC scale (and therefore have no idea that a "famine" is considered worse than a "food crisis"). From a purely linguistic standpoint, the two terms seem comparable. —David Levy 01:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this discussion. Several points:

It's not true that all areas are currently under a food crisis by U.N. definitions. If you check the image, there are large parts of all four countries that are only at the Phase 1 or Phase 2 levels. This is one of my main problems with using "food crisis" - it is not really the highest common denominator as there are two phases below that, and while it describe a slight plurality of areas at this moment, we have no idea how that is going to turn out soon. Perhaps after a few weeks all the areas will be under an emergency or a famine; or perhaps after a few weeks most of the areas will be back into Phase 2 or Phase 1. In fact, the UN has hinted that the food crisis in many regions may be alleviated in the next few weeks while the famine in southern Somalia will continue for months. Would we still call that a food crisis then?

Given this mess and rapidly changing circumstances, it doesn't seem particularly important to me that we get the most accurate description at this moment. As you've said as well, it's not like most of our audience recognizes the difference anyway. What matters is that we have one name and stick with it, and in this case we also happen to have the most common name as the event is represented in the media. That seems to me a convenient solution. I have enjoyed this discussion so far, but to be honest I don't see why you feel so strongly about the article's title. JimSukwutput 16:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I referred above to the "affected areas," by which I meant areas experiencing level-3 or worse conditions. Other areas, while peripherally involved, are not directly included in the article's primary subject.

You point out that the conditions are highly subject to change. This is why Wikipedia's titles aren't permanent. You say that "what matters is that we have one name and stick with it." While it's disruptive to change articles' titles without reason, we routinely rename articles when the circumstances dictate. (At one time, 2011 Horn of Africa drought was an appropriate title, but the circumstances changed.)

I feel strongly about this because it is "important to me that we get the most accurate description at this moment." That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Its content is dynamic and can be updated and revised as often as necessary. —David Levy 17:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet isn't the difference pretty minor, even from your perspective?

I understand your point, but remember that I only made the move after 3 users proposed it. And no one seems to have raised an objection about the title for the past few weeks. I can see overriding a consensus if Wikipedia policies are explicitly for one side or another. But in this case there is a lot of subjectivity involved in interpreting the terms used, not to mention that you're going against the most common name of the event in the media. But if you insist on changing the title, perhaps you could bring it up in the article's talk page so that other users can join in the discussion as well? JimSukwutput 17:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of overriding consensus (which is why I haven't renamed the article). I'm only expressing my opinions, which count no more than anyone else's.

Indeed, this is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, though I wanted to gain your insights before raising the subject (possibly clumsily) there. I sincerely thank you for engaging in the above conversation and improving my understanding of the underlying issues.

And yes, in the grand scheme of things, the difference is relatively minor. I think that we agree that neither 2011 Horn of Africa famine nor 2011 Horn of Africa food crisis is an unreasonable title for the article; we merely disagree on which is better.

Before I initiate a thread on the article's talk page, I want to gauge your opinion on whether there might be a third option. Perhaps we could resolve the problem by using neutral terminology (i.e. something other than a specific level on the IPC scale) to describe the overall situation. The term "food insecurity" is used as a collective, all-encompassing description (including in this image), so maybe 2011 Horn of Africa food insecurity would work. Another possibility is 2011 Horn of Africa food shortage. (These are merely examples, of course.) —David Levy 18:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either would work. Food insecurity is too general, while food shortage is not very accurate (there is no shortage of food in a lot of places, merely that some people can't purchase them). I have thought about this in the past and couldn't think of a better name. JimSukwutput 18:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In theory, assuming that we're able to think of a suitable description encompassing all affected areas (something other than a specific level on the IPC scale), do you support the general idea? That you thought about this in the past suggests that you do. —David Levy 18:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as it isn't too inaccurate for any particular area, yea. On one hand we need to encompass all affected areas, and on the other hand we need to balance that with the obvious fact that the most serious areas (those under famine) deserve more attention. So, while we can technically describe it all as a food problem or something like that, that would be omitting a lot of information. JimSukwutput 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How have I been disruptive by creating an AfD on this? I have taken a mass of abuse for doing a standard and reasonable thing.

Please explain. I've tried to start debate on the article's appropriateness (AfD is the right place to do it) and have seen attempts to stop the debate as soon as possible, including from you. Why? What pupose does it serve? I expect an answer to this that doesn't insult me personally instead of giving a policy-based reason. Matt Lewis (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion and kept due to overwhelming consensus. You nonetheless initiated a second deletion nomination, and the listing was speedily closed because the article is linked from the main page. This is standard procedure, so there clearly was nothing improper about that (and therefore no valid basis for a deletion review, which is not intended to serve as a backdoor AfD debate).

You need to accept the fact that there is near-unanimous consensus to keep the article (which one person's opinion, however strong, cannot override). And even if there weren't, the article is linked from the main page. —David Levy 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and it will be '2011 UK riots' when I come back tomorrow - another name change. Look I'm going to see you at RFC/u. I've stayed up and stuck my neck out for the benefit of everyone and I get called "disruptive" in two places from you for my trouble (amongst all the other attacks from people, like having a "vendetta" to something!). It's just not on - I'm a thoroughly decent and intelligent human being. Effective 'mob rule' on Wikipedia (how else can I describe the reaction to me?) leading to 'consensus' still should not preclude having debate and receiving due process on things like Afd (the article had substantially changed). That's what admin are supposed to be for isn't it - to keep hold of policy, sense and procedure? I've not been protected by admin tonight at all - far from it. Matt Lewis (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Perhaps the article's title will again change as its subject's scope expands. This is how Wikipedia works.

2. At no point have I questioned your decency or intelligence, nor have I called you "disruptive." I described the deletion review listing as such. I'm sorry that you perceive this as an attack, and I mean that sincerely. I assume that you're editing in good faith, but this doesn't negate the disruption. —David Levy 04:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on David, you went out of your way to call it disruptive. What do you expect people to think of me as a Wikipedia editor when an admin has done that? As I too use my own name, the two things are very-much the same thing to me. You must know of the slap/punch way so many admin work these days. I can give you countless examples. It's just a slap from you that will lead to a punch (typically a "behaviour-based" block-threat template) from someone else - for doing a similar policy-based thing that just happens to be generally unwanted by those who happen to be present. It's just impossible for any honest-speaking person to keep to AGF in these situations.

The Article for Deletion procedure (and its review) is simply made for the situation we have here - the discussion is taken part elsewhere and the article goes on as normal. That's supposed to be the deal. But both AfD's were quickly closed and you quickly shut-down the AfD review when I was actually in the process changing a point within my argument which one person wilfully imo misunderstood (I meant to get across that Wikipedia isn't a professional news outlet, but said it isn't a professional "media" one - which can mean anything of course, and the person ridiculed it). Do you realise how shitty it is to stay up so late and to be cut off mid-flow? And in that circumstance? I think it was totally un-Wikipedian of you, and I'm seeing this kind of behaviour on WP time and time again to be frank.

The debate was well away from the article space and was not "disrupting" anything - it was simply not wanted by immediately-involved people you would expect to disagree with it. That's why you need to give AfD's some time - to bring in non-participant opinion. In a review of a decision that is especially important, as with any kind of review system. There was no hurry at all. I'm afraid that I do think you just personally didn't want to see it going on (for whatever reason - maybe you were just irritated I don't know), but to me it was the kind of quick-jerk and POV-based admin-intervention I've been seeing so much of lately. I wonder if Wikipedia has ever been worse for it.

Anyway, seeing as you've apologised to some degree (do you know how few admin can be bothered to do even do that these days? The macho thing to do lately seems to be to 'act-ignore' like some kind of robot) I'll make my RFC on the subject and not through you. It will have to be tomorrow now if I can - I can't do another late night like that, and god knows what kind of flak I'll get for sticking my neck out this time. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I referred to your deletion review listing as "disruptive" because it was (though I'm not suggesting that this was intentional). The article's retention was decided via the normal process (with near-unanimous agreement). I realize that you disagree with the outcome, but that doesn't make it appropriate to continually restart the debate (thereby wasting many editors' time).

I'm genuinely sorry that you felt as though I was attacking you, but I've repeatedly explained that I was describing your actions, not you as a person. Nonetheless, you've persisted in claiming the opposite.

Indeed, AfD is the correct process through which to nominate an article for deletion, but that occurred (and the article was kept due to overwhelming consensus) before you became involved. I don't doubt that your subsequent nomination was made in good faith, but its speedy closure was procedurally correct; in addition to the fact that the matter already had been addressed (with the original AfD listing reaching a clear, unambiguous outcome), we routinely close AfD debates pertaining to articles linked from the main page. This has been explained to you several times.

You then initiated a deletion review. Again, I assume that you did so in good faith, but it lacked merit. In this context, deletion review is a forum in which to evaluate the procedural validity of decisions reached via deletion fora, not one in which to rehash the debates whose outcomes are disputed. The correct process clearly was followed (so the complaint was groundless), and you misused the forum (unintentionally, I trust) by presenting a rationale based almost entirely upon your opinions about the underlying content inclusion issue. (In other words, you treated the deletion review as a third AfD debate.)

Also of significant concern, as numerous editors have pointed out, is that you essentially are protesting Wikipedia's policies/guidelines by focusing on a textbook application thereof. You believe that we shouldn't host this type of content, and you seek to delete a single article written in accordance with our rules (instead of challenging the rules themselves). And for whatever reason, you've selected an extremely high-profile example (one that isn't even close to borderline), while acknowledging the obvious futility.

I'll reiterate my assumption that you're acting in good faith. I trust that you honestly believe that you're following the correct procedures (and that others have acted improperly), but you're mistaken. —David Levy 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly made some points, though you don't address my point of already-involved parties dominating speedy decisions - AfD's (esp the original 1 hour one) are to get uninvolved opinion. I should have hit the page and seen the original still afloat - that's where it all went wrong. I still can't see how just allowing these procedures to pass by as they normally would was simply not the wise thing to do. The speed is just so dismissive to people on my side of the general 'inclusion' argument. Doesn't it actually make sense to dot every 'i' in important situations, perhaps with some healthy and thought-provoking debate along the way? (believe me it's needed on WP sometimes). Where would the British Liberal Party be if it was always about the definite win? Regarding your comment on disruption - my main point is how other people will likely take it, and I came here to post this:

This is what I mean by the 'punch'. A little earlier I made a perfectly-reasonable comment on the London Riots talk page about archiving (some worthwhile points given the speed of events) and it lead onto a some words on the passing AfD ((it's the comment you link to above)). Someone has scroll-archived it as "not belonging" to the talk page. He seemed for a point like he could be willing to start an 'edit war' on scrolling it up (he reverted once using "Undid revision 443957921 by Matt Lewis (talk) You've already been told, more than once, that your behaviour is disruptive)") - despite that it is stopping me from replying to him. Why does he feel so confident? It must be the word "disruptive". Violet just kept telling me to give it up (and going out of her way to do so). It's an explosion based around a word. All of a sudden I've been "told more than once to stop being disruptive" ie personally stop being disruptive. I wonder if he understood properly what you meant - either way he's exploded it to undermine my say. Isn't easier just to let people have their say without being undermined in some way?

I've unscrolled my comment but it may well be that a passing admin sees me as starting a "disruptive" edit war. I've recently had a Warning given over a week after the event (which - just like this - was nothing at all). Wikipedia must let reasonable people have a reasonable say, even if it seems like it will go nowhere. When someone has a valid point it is simply the right thing to do. I understand that a second AfD was going to be looked down upon (I actually missed the first one as it was simply closed so flipping quickly - though I should have checked I admit), but I still don't get the review closure and probably never will (I took it as a given that the original 1-hour-long AfD was flawed). It wouldn't be the first time Wikipedian's had two views of the same rule if that is the case. But lets move on, and I really must kick off to sleep. The story unfolds on the radio - reflecting a waste of WP resources imo. It can only be for daily news - like a daily newspaper. Encyclopedic? At least when WP gets it wrong it is soon gone - but it's the social effects of that happening that bothers me. At some point these news events got to be "high profile" on WP - I'm sure that originally they were out of WP's remit (at least for a sensible while). I just don't know what this place wants to be any more. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. If a deletion debate's outcome is overwhelmingly obvious at an early juncture, the proper course of action usually is to close the listing (which otherwise would waste editors' time and draw undo negative attention to the article).

Otherwise, if someone were to nominate the David Cameron article or the Barack Obama article for deletion, we'd be forced to allow the discussion to drag on for a week (embarrassing Wikipedia in the process).

To most of the users commenting, the outcome of a proposal to delete 2011 England riots is no less inevitable. Wikipedia routinely covers major ongoing events, and you seek to delete an article about one of the most prominent subjects in the news around the world. You've even acknowledged that your efforts are largely futile.

And again, setting all of this aside, the article is linked from the main page. Even if there hadn't been a previous deletion debate, it's standard procedure to speedily close one in such a circumstance (pending consensus to remove the main page link, which has no realistic chance of occurring in this instance). Therefore, the deletion review (which you treated as a new AfD discussion — something explicitly outside the forum's scope) lacked merit.

Any "valid point" you've made pertains to your belief that Wikipedia shouldn't contain such material. As numerous editors (including some with similar views) have told you, neither AfD nor a particular article's talk page is the correct forum in which to argue such a position. It's entirely reasonable to propose that Wikipedia change its standards regarding coverage of current events, but until such time, it's not appropriate to push for the deletion of an article clearly complying the rules in their current form (as opposed to the form that you want them to take).

I wasn't the only person (or even the first) to describe your actions on this matter as disruptive. Violetriga went significantly further. The edit summary that you directly quoted states that your behaviour has been deemed disruptive, so I don't know why you also misquoted it in a manner referring to you (the person) as such. And yes, continuing to press the issue on the article's talk page (despite clear consensus that it isn't the proper forum) is disruptive. —David Levy 03:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

David Levy, he just doesn't "get it". And it doesn't look like he ever will. Deterence ^Talk 06:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This "Snowballing" aside I cannot see any actual "disruption". Re snowballing - a 1 hour AfD? What do people expect? It is an 'Ignore All Rule' in certain circumstances - and we have one a dramatic one here - if I ever saw one. Calling it 'disruptive' so frankly in two places was just OTT and guaranteed to influence others as it certainly did, and has caused far more disruption to me than any of you have been even close to having. I've had an attack on my talk page now (thanks Deterence - what have I actually done to you, or to "disrupt" you??) and I'm just losing respect here. If the first Afd was given some time none of this would have happened.

I just cannot see how you come to these 'disruptive behaviour' conclusions. How did Violetriga go "significantly further"?!! She just kept urging me to leave it now, as she felt it was pointless. I dindn't see that as a good enough reason. Where is the "clear consensus" that a few words criticising the article is not "proper" for the forum? There was no "clear consensus" at all. Violet and some one called Pig (who rolled it up) were the complainers. Most people naturally just read it and left it - do they not count? I've been a Wikipedia for 5 years - I know what is relevant to a talk page or not. This whole thing has been treated as being out of Wikipedia's realm in my view - but it is STILL within Wikipedia. Some of this seems to me to be building a case out of nothing, and is not pleasant at all. It is just so unnecessary too. Please can we leave it here till I can a 'meta' thing going.

And Deterence - I'm not trying to "CENSOR" anything. I just don't think that reporting breaking news (and esp a spreading riot widely believed to be flared by social networking) is in Wikipedia's realm - at least on the encyclopedia. Believe me I'm not alone, and this article was and is entirely problematic in my opinion. People do get upset and emotional on Wikipedia - that happens sometimes (I had a very strong reaction from just a couple of people), but I did and have done nothing wrong. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted, I'm genuinely sorry that you perceived my comments as a personal attack. I will not, however, apologize for referring to your actions as "disruptive," nor will I accept the blame for others' similar statements (some of which predate mine). If you want people to stop referring to your conduct as "disruptive," please stop behaving disruptively.

In the face of numerous explanations (mine and others'), your professed bafflement as to how your behavior has been disruptive (and insistence that you "did and have done nothing wrong") corroborates Deterence's above assertion. Please see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point".

If you don't understand how it's disruptive to continually force users to debate the retention of an article obviously in compliance with Wikipedia's content standards (on the basis that you disagree with the rules, which you refuse to challenge directly), including the misuse of the deletion review forum as AfD, all while the article is linked from the main page (which routinely results in the automatic closure of deletion listings), I can't help you.

Violetriga went significantly further by accusing you of violating WP:POINT (i.e. deliberately causing disruption to illustrate a point). I haven't alleged that the disruption is intentional, though it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith.

You've been told by multiple persons (including some who agree with your stance on Wikipedia's coverage of current events) that the proper course of action is to discuss modifying the underlying content standards, not to continue your futile push for the deletion of an article that clearly complies with (and obviously won't be deleted under) the current rules. You needn't agree, but you need to accept the consensus and cease rehashing your criticisms on the article's talk page (which inflames the situation and distracts contributors from constructive discourse).

I realize that you honestly believe that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but I beg of you to accept that position's unsustainability and drop the stick. —David Levy 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad this has moved on to you rather than me now David, but please don't try to make me look bad by saying that I went "significantly further" than you. Perhaps your interpretation of WP:POINT is more hostile than mine. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not trying to make you look bad (or hostile). Your citations of WP:POINT were entirely reasonable. (If anything, I probably should have cited it too.)

I seek only to dispel Matt's notion that users describing his actions as "disruptive" are blindly parroting my comments. —David Levy 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I thought that was the case but wanted to make sure. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to fall out with anyone. FWIW, that fist Afd went by so fast I didn't see it (apart from those writing the article who did?) and I was on the afd roll by then. There must be a lesson there somewhere, not least in what we can credibly refer to as an achieved consensus, whether what is likely to be consensus comes about or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I only actually commented on the Riot talk page a couple of times, mainly after the Afd review was stopped while I was amending my text as I said, which obviously I found frustrating. All the problems since have essentially been caused by the 'personalised' reactions I've had - and in my reactions to them I've needed to repeat things if I wanted to defend myself, over the various four or five pages or so. Sometimes "everyone else" is a garbled room in a pub, but yes I do feel righteous about this, even though I recognised the RFC/VP approach is the best way to go, in what feels like ages ago now in the scale of things(!) It's since been all about the personalisation of it all - though not your own intention I accept. Unfortunately the "disruptive" thing just got picked up with the general personal comments I've had, and I've rehashed my points while defending myself - when all the while I just wanted people to get off my back. It 'snowballed' for me from the beginning really. Perhaps Violet could see that happening I don't know.

I popped back in tonight to answer my talk page, and then I'm having the break. I'll give it a little time to settle before I take it to a meta discussion. Hopefully little of what I've just had on my talk (and the guy above who was blocked too) will follow it along. I'll refer back as little as I can when I mention this article. Some people there do very much want to protect this article you know, and being in any degree 'personal' when addressing a critical comment - rather than just dealing with the comment as people should - is just a way of doing that. Perhaps it's just natural with something like this. It's just not quite all been A (me) vs B (everyone else acting in unison), that's at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but this back-and-forth has continued because of your persistence. I did read an inappropriate comment about you (which others quickly condemned), but you've mainly misinterpreted constructive criticisms of your behavior as personal attacks and defended yourself against slights that simply didn't exist. You've done so by continually rehashing your original argument and proclaiming that your 100% proper actions have been unfairly suppressed by editors conspiring to control the article and silence dissent. While stemming from a desire to get people off your back, your messages have mainly served to inflame the situation and provoke additional criticisms of your behavior (which you've then perceived as further personal attacks, causing the cycle to continue).

You obviously have found the experience quite taxing, so a break seems like a good idea. I sincerely hope that it alleviates your stress. —David Levy 01:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I get talkback for that? How in God's name can that not be offensive? I've told you many times the reasons for my actions and I'm clearly going to have to 'diff' them in a timeline for you now, the next time I get a good sitting at this. Jesus. You may have admin powers but given all I've said that was tactless even if it wasn't such a dismissive misjudgement - I've been confidently classed as "disruptive" by some people largely because of you. I've actually been kind enough to change my stance over the clearly irresponsible way you went about calling me "disruptive" - simply for starting an Afd review that was pointed to me by the Afd closing admin. You said on closing the review that I seeked to circumvent policy! There was no need to be so personal and strident. How is that "not personal" like you claim? Sorry, but that's just complete denial from you. You speedy-closed it (which is surely a form of 'wheel warring' given that an admin suggested it - and I was entitled to do a RFC on that alone, though I agree that Afd is not worthwhile now - you don't have to keep pointing that out) and then you went to the WP discussion page and again called it "disruptive" - which got quickly taken-up by some people who were already dealing with my (very few at the time) comments personally, when they only needed to respond to the comments or just let them lie - which they couldn't. Yes - they couldn't. You seem absolutely bent on absolving everyone but me, apart from the one completely OTT person who basically had me down as so "disruptive" that he could safely call me mentally ill (and yes of course I hold you partly responsible for that as it all spiralled after your judgement). And you concentrate all of this on me despite all the 'non-standard' behaviour frankly that this article has brought about.

It is utterly needless for you to act like this (especially at this juncture), and I'm still here because - as you must realise by now - I am someone who will always wish to stand up for myself if I believe in myself, which as I consider my decisions beforehand and happily admit mistakes if I make them - is much of the time. I do not contravene policy in doing so apart from sometimes over the awkwardness of keeping to civility when combined with AGF (who doesn't struggle with that at times? But I've been a Wikipedian for 5 years so I do know what is acceptible here - I'm not new David) - I just expect an un-compromised and un-harassed right to my say, and to respond again if people choose to put me down or get me wrong. You can safely read what I say knowing well that I mean it, even if I am riled when I write it, or perhaps if I 'text wall' it a little on occasion (although you'll rarely see me do that on article pages). I am having a 'break' from Wikipedia because I can't do this nonsense and deal with the rest of my working life at this particular moment in time. I shouldn't be doing it at all right now really, but I can get in PC work sporadically if I am able to concentrate - but that's often been the case lately. You have no idea what I do in my life, but it often includes nights like this. Jesus you were unbelievably patronising just then. On top of dumping completely on everything I've said. Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bravo David. Really hit the nail on the head. The user in question ignored standard AFD Policy, then continued to push his point by listing it at DRV, then threatened to have you desysopped via RFCU and now we're at fault? Nope. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are 'we'? You've just joined in to stir things up. I never threatened to have anyone 'desysopped' - I took back the 'RFC/u' comment as soon as David replied to me and said it wasn't personal. What's desysopping got to do with a RFC/u? (or ANI - I do tend to say 'RFC/u' if I think and admin is being out of line - maybe ANI is better but I tend to see it as an editor place). Are you noting all these OTT asides like this one David? It's been quite a few now hasn't it over the pages? And of course "I can't drop it". Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I get talkback for that? How in God's name can that not be offensive?

So...it's fine for you to blame others for dragging out the ordeal, but my suggestion that you're largely responsible (unintentionally, through honest misunderstanding) is "offensive"?

You may have admin powers but given all I've said that was tactless even if it wasn't such a dismissive misjudgement

Firstly, the fact that I'm an administrator is contextually irrelevant. I've never cited this to bolster an argument.

Secondly, I certainly haven't dismissed your feelings. My above expression of concern regarding your stress is sincere (and amplified by your reply). I don't doubt that you've genuinely felt attacked and sought to defend yourself, and I haven't taken that lightly for a moment. However, I won't pretend to agree with your perceptions in this area, which I regard as mostly inaccurate.

I've been confidently classed as "disruptive" by some people largely because of you.

Again, I wasn't the first editor (or even the first administrator, which I note strictly because of the distinction that exists in your mind) to describe your behavior on this matter as disruptive.

You flatter me to suggest that I wield that sort of power. I'm really not all that influential around here, nor do I aspire to be. Like you, I've ruffled some feathers with controversial opinions about how Wikipedia should operate. When people disagree with me, they say so (as they should).

Multiple editors have referred to your actions as "disruptive" because you've continually caused disruption. It really is that simple.

I've actually been kind enough to change my stance over the clearly irresponsible way you went about calling me "disruptive"

Again, I haven't called you "disruptive." I described your behavior as such. You actually acknowledged this at one point, and now you're back to framing it as a personal attack.

simply for starting an Afd review that was pointed to me by the Afd closing admin.

Again, in this context, the deletion review forum is one in which deletion discussion outcomes are evaluated from a procedural perspective. It explicitly is not a forum in which to conduct an AfD debate, which is precisely how you treated it. You did so instead of challenging the procedural correctness of the speedy closure, which would have been baseless (given the fact that we routinely close deletion listings of articles linked from the main page, as has been noted repeatedly).

You said on closing the review that I seeked to circumvent policy!

You did. You were advised of Wikipedia's standard procedure in such a circumstance, and you then sought to work around it; an AfD listing was disallowed, so you initiated the same debate (with no substantive difference) in a different forum.

I'm not suggesting that you did so out of malice or dishonesty. I trust that you proceeded in the manner that you believed made the most sense, but you nonetheless acted inappropriately and disruptively.

How is that "not personal" like you claim?

It isn't a judgement of you as a person. I haven't questioned your intelligence or sincerity. You're taking offense to assertions (from multiple editors) that your actions have been misguided. (Meanwhile, you allege that others have been downright treacherous in their treatment of you.)

You speedy-closed it (which is surely a form of 'wheel warring' given that an admin suggested it

No one advised you to initiate a third AfD debate in the deletion review forum.

You seem absolutely bent on absolving everyone but me, apart from the one completely OTT person who basically had me down as so "disruptive" that he could safely call me mentally ill (and yes of course I hold you partly responsible for that as it all spiralled after your judgement).

No, it spiraled after you responded to allegations of disruptive conduct by engaging in further disruptive conduct (and so on).

I'm stunned that you hold me partly to blame for that ridiculous comment about your mental health.

And you concentrate all of this on me despite all the 'non-standard' behaviour frankly that this article has brought about.

The nonstandard behavior has been yours. You've continually expressed outrage regarding our normal processes and ordinary occurrences therein.

Meanwhile, you sought to delete an article obviously in compliance with our content standards (because you disagree with said standards). You objected to the listing's speedy closure after it was explained to you that the article already had survived an AfD debate with near-unanimous agreement and that we routinely close AfD listings of articles linked from the main page. You then initiated a third AfD debate in the deletion review forum (whose purpose is separate). When that was deemed "disruptive" and closed, you interpreted this as a personal attack and attempted to defend yourself with sweeping condemnations and multiple reiterations of your overwhelmingly rejected deletion rationale.

All the while, you've maintained that you've done absolutely nothing improper and alleged that everyone around you has behaved outrageously. And now you're blaming me for another user's offensive comment (which I've condemned), while taking offense at my suggestion that you've unintentionally exacerbated the situation through honest misunderstanding.

"OTT" doesn't begin to describe your behavior. —David Levy 06:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

David, I'm not going to deal with all of that (and someone needs to back down clearly - and it will be me after this..), but just look at the edit notes and dismissive language that I've had, on the talks too. As soon as you made clear to all that 'my actions' (your semantic, but you didn't supply any meaningful distinction that I can see) were "disruptive" all the language I had was along the lines of "you have been clearly seen as "disruptive"" (using the word) and I was not treated respectfully at all from then on. It's about the officialness and about the word. I really do think you need to learn from this. Violet (the other admin) was giving me almost-apologetic advice - but you yourself rubber-stamped "Disruptive" over my name for 'avoiding consensus' and 'not giving up' - when (as we know) I actually thought I was following correct procedure from admin direction.

I'm not saying you intended for a troll to join in and call me mentally ill - but it is simply logical to see how it happened after your judgement, and the way the word was then taken up by some very-partisan people, instead of just leaving my few (mostly hidden by then) comments alone. That troll taking the 'edge' (and that was water off a ducks back by the way - I'm not upset about that in itself), or the general disrespectful snottiness I've had from certain people (which I do not like), would not have happened to the personalised and conclusive degree it did if you hadn't labelled me (or 'my actions' as you insist) as disruptive, and I would have not have received all the integrity-compromising comments I felt I needed to defend myself from. I don't want a shitty reputation - so I defend myself. In people's eyes I became a rubber-stamped disruptor, and the subsequent personalisation was just Wikpedians taking an 'edge' (IMO largely to stem any sense of this kind of article not ethically belonging to Wikpiedia) - as Wikipedians so often do in these controversial and deeply-felt circumstances. People are bound to be emotional about an article like this. I don't see how any of that can 'stagger' you - this is just Wikipedia being Wikipidia, and admin need to tread carefully at times like this.

I'm not going to reply to whatever you say in response to this, because I think this is getting really silly now. Just please don't repeat that "Afd is not the place" like I haven't known that since almost at the the start of this nonsense. Someone will just come along and say "Hear, hear! He surely is disruptive!" etc etc. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you made clear to all that 'my actions' (your semantic, but you didn't supply any meaningful distinction that I can see) were "disruptive" all the language I had was along the lines of "you have been clearly seen as "disruptive"" (using the word) and I was not treated respectfully at all from then on.

1. If you don't see a meaningful distinction between "you did something disruptive" and "you're a disruptive individual," I can't help you.

As a Wikipedia editor, I've accidentally caused disruption from time to time. So has Jimbo Wales. It happens, and it doesn't make someone a bad person or mean that he/she acted maliciously. To err is human.

2. Again, I wasn't the first editor (or even the first administrator) to describe your behavior on this matter as disruptive. I've noted this several times (and even linked to diffs), so I have a difficult time accepting that you still believe otherwise.

I wasn't the last editor to describe your behavior as disruptive because your behavior was disruptive.

3. Apart from the remark about your mental health, you're primarily perceiving (and seeking to defend yourself against) disrespect that simply doesn't exist. People opine that your behavior has been misguided, and you interpret these comments as personal attacks.

Violet (the other admin) was giving me almost-apologetic advice - but you yourself rubber-stamped "Disruptive" over my name

Three hours before the matter came to my attention, Violetriga stated three times that you deliberately disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.

I actually thought I was following correct procedure from admin direction.

But you weren't, so your listing was inappropriate and disruptive. Had you bothered to read the very first section at Wikipedia:Deletion review, you'd have known that (just as you would have known about the first AfD listing if you'd bothered to check the article's talk page).

You've repeatedly pointed out that you've been a Wikipedian for years, but if you aren't willing to avail yourself of relevant information, that matters very little. —David Levy 02:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually the one who nominated it first before you, but i gree with David Levy. I think Matt is irresponsible to nominate again when my nomination was overwhelmingly rejected. I advice Matt to avoid wasting so much time that could be used on something useful, such as clearing the backlogs or something. I agree with David Levy's analysis that Matt is disruptive on this isue. Pass a Method talk 14:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note here to say that I didn't see the first Afd - and I've said that a number few times now. This is the problem I'm having - people not reading back and just joining in to criticise. It was no wonder I missed it, as it was closed in 1 hour. Everyone missed it but the natrually-biased participants. Unfortunately nobody can claim a credible consensus based on a group of invested people who are always going to say 'keep'. OK - the article is 'per policy' etc, but AfD's are supposed to encourage new participants. It should have been obvious that a new Afd would be started if the first was closed so fast - that always happens in contentious subjects like this. I really should have come to the article and seen that AfD still running - I'd have merely posted my say and none of this crap would have happened. As for the 'Afd review'? An admin suggested it and I stupidly did it instead of the RFC which was I knew by then was the way to go (as I also I keep saying). Wikipedia needs to learn a lesson from this - let Afd's like this one run a sensible course. Afds have always been a something of a weak spot imo, though I've noticed that they seem to getting better overall in terms of sensible results.

I am sorry to repeat that again (I know I've said it before), but the first Afd is clearly where things initially went awry. Just leave them for a while so un-biased non-participating people can see them and contribute. And if it was closed-early 'per policy' why do people go on about its "overwhelming consensus"? Whatever the likelyhood of the eventual result, it was just not credible enough to cite 'achieved consensus' from. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note here to say that I didn't see the first Afd - and I've said that a number few times now.

But it was brought to your attention (as was the fact that articles linked from the main page are ineligible for AfD nominations) before you filed a third AfD listing in the guise of a deletion review.

OK - the article is 'per policy' etc, but AfD's are supposed to encourage new participants.

AfD nominations aren't supposed to be filed for articles known to comply with policy (as you've acknowledged this one does). That's an abuse of the system, a waste of editors' time and an embarrassment to the website (especially when dealing with a high-profile subject).

And you don't see how your actions were disruptive?

It should have been obvious that a new Afd would be started if the first was closed so fast - that always happens in contentious subjects like this.

The matter isn't contentious. As far as I've seen, you're the only person opining that the article should be deleted. If others agree with you, where are they? Why aren't they expressing support for your position?

As for the 'Afd review'? An admin suggested it and I stupidly did it instead of the RFC which was I knew by then was the way to go (as I also I keep saying).

An admin pointed you to the correct forum in which to contest a deletion discussion outcome viewed as procedurally incorrect (which this one clearly wasn't, as you'd been referred to documentation of the fact that articles linked from the main page are ineligible to be listed at AfD). You then submitted a third AfD listing in that forum (ignoring the explanation that the "process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented").

Wikipedia needs to learn a lesson from this - let Afd's like this one run a sensible course.

Everyone but you agrees that it did. You believe that we should "learn a lesson" and modify our procedures (to allow debates with overwhelmingly obvious outcomes to drag on) because you (and you alone) are displeased. That, in your view, is evidence that things "went awry." —David Levy 02:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All of this?? What is wrong with you man? Can't you just leave it. I was pointed to the WP:DRV (or '3rd Afd' as you keep annoyingly calling it) by an administrator (believe it or not I have not encountered the review system before) - and was trying to follow a procedure - THAT IS ALL. I am not Barabbas, and it doesn't really matter how I worded it at the end of the day - it was just bloody procedure. I didn't get a chance to amend the Review as you closed it so quickly, and you gave me no prior advice beforehand - you just closed it as disruptive with a real hot vibe. It's just been aggressive adminship. In reality it or I disrupted nothing of any consequence at all. Stop talking for other people like Violetriga, and stop attacking me - that is effectively what you are doing David. In fact, just stop continuing this forever when I've been unfairly getting the blame for doing that myself (though not any longer thank goodness - though the silly comments haven't yet stopped). It's like you cannot take a tiny bit of criticism, even when it's for something relatively small that has sadly ended up given someone quite a lot of grief now. Have you seen my talk page?? Passers-by have made all kinds of assumptions, and trolls have had a field day. You are mad to think I haven't suffered from a clear post-DRV escalation. You have done nothing at all to help (which admin are supposed to do) and everything to knock me down while you can see things stirring up around me. You have said nothing to put-right those who have attacked me on your own talk page, or otherwise. You have pitched it all as Matt vs 'everyone else' which is just gross of you if you actually thought about it, and that has just excited the trollish types. You are starting to sound like you are genuinely out to upset me. It just beggars belief. Can you take me off your talkback – I really do not like you at all, or agree with you at all, and I do not wish to come in here again. I am extremely upset by this whole experience with you, and anyone in my position would be. I might get a load of 'victim' crap now on my talk page but I'm just tired of this now. If this is adminship then give me a riot shield to protect myself with. Matt Lewis (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All of this?? What is wrong with you man? Can't you just leave it.

You've repeatedly stressed the importance of defending yourself, but when I act in kind, it means that something is "wrong with [me]"?

I was pointed to the WP:DRV (or '3rd Afd' as you keep annoyingly calling it)

No, WP:DRV explicitly is not WP:AFD. You merely misused it as such (apparently because you didn't read the documentation).

by an administrator

Yes, an administrator pointed you to the correct forum in which to contest a deletion discussion outcome viewed as procedurally incorrect (not to rehash the debate itself).

(believe it or not I have not encountered the review system before)

Oh, I believe it. That's why it would have been very helpful to read the documentation before attempting to initiate a listing.

and was trying to follow a procedure - THAT IS ALL.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make the result any less disruptive.

But as I noted, it happens to all of us. Had you simply accepted that you goofed, that would've been the end of it. Instead, you responded to the listing closure with "righteous" indignation, denying that you'd erred in any way ("I did and have done nothing wrong."). This dragged out the aftermath, for which you've blamed everyone else.

In reality it or I disrupted nothing of any consequence at all.

How many people have to tell you otherwise before you'll begin to wonder whether maybe, just maybe, your perception is inaccurate? At what point will you start to question your belief that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Stop talking for other people like Violetriga,

By quoting and linking to her comments?

and stop attacking me - that is effectively what you are doing David.

I'm responding to your assertions on my talk page.

In fact, just stop continuing this forever when I've been unfairly getting the blame for doing that myself

You're welcome to disengage at any time.

I honestly thought that this exchange was peacefully winding down more than a day ago, and I was taken aback when it unexpectedly and inexplicably roared back to life with yesterday's 4:16 (UTC) reply.

It's like you cannot take a tiny bit of criticism

Wow.

You are mad to think I haven't suffered from a clear post-DRV escalation.

I don't think that. I think that you've caused most of it.

You have done nothing at all to help (which admin are supposed to do)

I've done my best to explain the nature of your errors. The barrier is your refusal to accept that you've committed any.

and everything to knock me down while you can see things stirring up around me.

I'm merely spinning my sails in the wind that you've continually stirred up.

You have said nothing to put-right those who have attacked me on your own talk page, or otherwise.

I condemned the remark abut your mental health (and would have done so in the actual thread if it hadn't been closed by the point at which I read the offending message). Apart from that, you're criticising me for failing to tilt at windmills.

You have pitched it all as Matt vs 'everyone else' which is just gross of you if you actually thought about it

I'm addressing your posts, in which you've portrayed this incident as one in which things "went awry" when discussion of a "contentious" issue was silenced and dissenting views were suppressed. If you're going to make such claims (and cite them as justification for massive process reforms), you need to be prepared for the inevitable observation that you literally are the only person on your side of the debate.

You are starting to sound like you are genuinely out to upset me.

I'm not, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Can you take me off your talkback

Done.

I really do not like you at all, or agree with you at all, and I do not wish to come in here again.

No one is forcing you to. —David Levy 05:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Why are you still addressing me personally? You know that I know you're not going to stop, and that I'm feel obliged to return (even through closed eyes) and the view the damage. I think you are playing games.

How do you dare to keep calling me 'the only one', when most people (apart from some seriously-partisan and OTT people) have simply kept out of this. You have essentially included yourself with with a limited number of decidedly motley editors in saying this is 'me vs everyone else'. Apart from trolls like Deterent, and misinformed and rudely-forward people like Hot Stop – who has actual backed you up here? Who has backed you up who hasn't already been OTT, or 'supported' you by picking up your ill-advised and full-on “disruptive” baton and hitting me with it? I think you are deeply unpleasant in your need to pour out the green ink, and try and totally flatten my stance by playing with each point - when it is simply your opinion against mine. I think your judgements are totally wrong - and it is NOT all simplistic and black and white. It's just so insulting.

No admin should behave like you are doing - you are simply abusing your job, and people like me are getting more and more dissatisfied with the way individuals like you feel they can swing it around like a club. You are not British (or in Britain) - so why not have the wisdom and dignity of leaving these actions to someone who is? It no-doubt adds to your inability to see how far some people will go to keep this article away from criticism – esp by treating someone who has simply criticised it like crap using any 'edge' that they can. You clearly cannot see how much these articles divide Wikipedia too. Whatever you say, you will not have seen enough UK media (radio, tv - not just the bloody internet) so will not have a decent-enough feeling for this, and how it has divided many people in the UK over what this is all about. Your totally determined and unwarranted over-simplification of everything (motives included), and continual demonisation of me (me v' s some of these editor-policy abusing partisans – including you? It's totally shit.) frankly makes you little better than that "'disruptive' mental health etc" troll who was rightly blocked.

Your aggressive attitude over the Review simply made a limited situation so much worse, and lead to a hugely-uncondusive atmosphere, when admin are supposed to do exactly the opposite. And you have the gall to call me disruptive for doing next to nothing wrong (then or after). I just hope you don't take your bloody green ink beyond your talk page, as when the dust in London and elsewhere has settled (which is best now I think) I'll pitch the RFC. Lets see what abuse I get after all this.

I'm came back here because I care about where Wikipedia is going on a number of fronts, and obviously you have really bothered me – and of course I know you are not going cease this offensive attack on my standing as an editor here. You know exactly what you are doing. I am wondering if you are not some kind of chuggalong drama queen, or just an egoist who needs to completely overwhelm someone you are in an uncomfortable disagreement with. Either way all your behaviour here has shown you to be a nightmare of an admin by any decent standard. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

David, please don't waste your time replying to this - his lengthy, repetitive monologues are really not worth your time. Matt, you are wrong on so many levels and certainly on the "nightmare of an admin" comment. Go away, think about the RfC (which I still wouldn't recommend) and let this drop. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, if he properly drops it, then I immediately will. That means no compromising parting shots - something I can read and simply shrug at without being offended by. Violet - I genuinely don't think that it is productive to say that you wouldn't recommend an RFC because it is just the start of negativity, and gets picked-up on by people - ie "Someone else has already recommended you give this up". It's compounding. RFC might not be the actual way I go - it's been a while since I've done this kind of thing. It will be largely general anyway. On one hand I so wish I took your original advice (I'd be a fool not to with hindsight), but on another I wish you'd have kept your negativity to yourself - esp the comment on the actual article talk, which wasn't needed. I've had no real beef with you (I know you originally meant well), but admin really shouldn't lean on people's decisions publicly like that - people with a reason to will just run with it. You knew how unpopular my position would be with some people. The "NO CENSORSHIP" thing is always difficut on Wikipedia, esp when it is over something as dramatic and upsetting as these events. I just wish you'd emailed me instead or something.

I've struck the last line as it probably it was uncivil, and just detracts from my arguments really.Matt Lewis (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But you saw fit to leave in the "deeply unpleasant," "chuggalong drama queen" and "egoist" remarks? Those struck you as perfectly civil? —David Levy 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

By all means, Mr. Levy, keep giving him chances. Id love to see how you excuse his most recent response. I have my own ideas about what ruins WP, and part of it is the relentless coddling of people like Mr. Lewis here, who if they ever actually added anything to the project have clearly made up for it in spades. There are entire essays here on the inability of WP to deal with so-called "civil POV pushers", but from reading the shrine-to-his-own-drama that is his talk page, he gave up civility years ago. Might be time to consider pulling the plug on this crusader; of course, that's just a pipe dream, admittedly. In reality, 40 more people will just say "Remember WP: AGF, dear Matt. Remember WP: CIVIL, dear Matt." and he will continue to ignore them.

As someone unconnected to the original issue (his one-sentence deletion argument that started all this), merely being fascinated enough by his sheer gall to start following it, I can say as an outsider that if he doesn't have some manner of underlying issue (Looks like a bipolar duck, walks like a bipolar duck...), as irrelevent as that is, he's wholly and completely ruled by his emotions (cf. his screaming of "You don't know me! You don't know what I've been through!" as some attempt to justify(?) his behavior), and the subsequent requirement to walk on eggshells for him THIS far along bothers me on a very primal level.

And do not reply to me, Mr. Lewis. I have no interest in dealing with you. God knows you'll never leave me alone. But feel free to use what I said for your next wall of text ignoring the charges against you, as it'd be roughly analogous to throwing a bucket of water into the ocean. Then David can continue playing the sighing nanny as you throw your toys around the room and shriek about how you're gonna run away (Edit: yet again...) and then we'll be sorry as if the man has nothing better to do.Mr Rubino (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a "bipolar duck". Obviously, I question those who wish to make such comments. The language you use says everything about you that people need to know - and you've been in good company over this matter. I'm sick of digs from people over this who tell me that I cannot reply. Why would I follow you around - when have I ever done that to anyone? I said "you don't know what I do" to David, not to 'justify my behaviour' (why not read it?) but because he was unbelievably rude and patronising over why I wanted to take a break. I happen to work as a carer, often at nights. He couldn't even leave it at that point - it's something new every time with him that leaves me feeling compromised and unsurprisingly unhappy. Why? He is the admin here. He needs to help stop this, not try and have the last flipping tubthump every time.

Anyone else who wants to keep this up? Or shall we finally let it go now? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I told you not to reply to me because I wasn't interested in hearing you slightly rearrange the same series of words for the 50th time. Yes, "poor me being ganged up on for doing nothing wrong", etc. I got it the first multiple times. Whoever it is you're caring for needs and deserves a strong will right about now; don't sell them out for sympathy points because you like to pick fights.

OT: Your type never can resist a good "Here's an vague and ambiguous comment about you being a meanie without actually saying so because I'm passive-aggressive to a cartoonish degree" dig even when I'm just about putting up neon signs and saying "Strike here". Are you physically unable to be direct and/or concise, or do you honestly think you're "saying" more by saying more, if you're getting me? (That was rhetorical. I had you types pegged long ago. Too bad those in power don't.) Mr Rubino (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, "bipolar" was probably the nicest thing I thought of, that gave you the biggest benefit of the doubt. There are a few other groups that wikis supposedly bring out in record numbers. Least you could do is be grateful. Mr Rubino (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sincerely hoping that the above comment and this single line will be the end of this fruitless discussion. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry (to Violetriga as well), but I feel that some of your comments are important to address. —David Levy 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[David] was unbelievably rude and patronising over why I wanted to take a break.

My goodness, is that how you perceived my comment? This is what I wrote:

You obviously have found the experience quite taxing, so a break seems like a good idea. I sincerely hope that it alleviates your stress.

You've repeatedly mentioned how trying this situation has been for you, so I expressed my sincere hope that your break from Wikipedia would alleviate your stress. I'm utterly baffled as to why you would view that as an insult, and this is exactly what I mean when I say that you're tilting at windmills. You're so tense that you're even perceiving well-wishes as personal attacks. —David Levy 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying? I've certainly found it (and you) unpleasant. You seem to be saying here that you yourself have been having fun. Have you forgotten what this article is about? (Not that you've really thought about that for one minute.) Again you are arguing with someone's personal reaction to something and taking it further. It is just fucked up David. You really are a piece of work. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying? I've certainly found it (and you) unpleasant.

To reiterate, this is your response to a sincere well-wish.

You seem to be saying here that you yourself have been having fun.

Please quote the specific text that you interpreted in that manner. I assure you that I'm not "having fun."

Have you forgotten what this article is about? (Not that you've really thought about that for one minute.)

Why would you think that I lack concern regarding the England riots? When has this discussion even touched on that? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you still addressing me personally?

Why are you addressing me personally? Because we're replying to each other, of course.

I didn't mean that, did I. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? What didn't you mean? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You know that I know you're not going to stop, and that I'm feel obliged to return (even through closed eyes) and the view the damage. I think you are playing games.

Has it occurred to you that I might feel similarly compelled to respond? I don't even have the option of not receiving a "new messages" banner. (I won't, however, accuse you of "playing games.")

All I did was say how your aggressive use of twice using "disruptive" (and I can see how biased you are since) when you aggresively speedy-closed the review. It was unnecassary and things escallated from then on when nutter took it up. Since then you've needlessly contensted EVERYTHING I've said with green ink, including my simple feelings on the matter. What kind of nutcase argues with someone elses subjective stance to this degree? It is really controlling and fucked up. I've been left compromised (and I've got about 10 diffs now to prove that). You must have some idea of how Wikipedia works. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote the following: "How have I been disruptive by creating an AfD on this?" "Please explain."

So I explained how you were disruptive. You asked me to. —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you dare to keep calling me 'the only one', when most people (apart from some seriously-partisan and OTT people) have simply kept out of this.

You appear to have misunderstood. I'm not referring to this thread; I'm referring to the issue of whether to keep or delete the article. Who, other than you, advocates that the article be deleted?

No - I understood. You are off the scale there. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Where is the outpouring of complaints? Why aren't people lining up to demand that the article be deleted and express their outrage at the speedy closures that shut out their input? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are deeply unpleasant in your need to pour out the green ink, and try and totally flatten my stance by playing with each point

This is the format that I use when responding to individual questions/comments contained within long messages. I find that it significantly improves communication by clarifying which points I'm addressing. I've done it for years.

No comment. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

when it is simply your opinion against mine.

If you genuinely perceive this exchange as "simply your opinion against mine," why are you outraged by my decision to continue replying? Why do you believe that it's appropriate only for you to respond?

Your increasing comments have damaged my general standing (though not from anyone intelligent) - look at my talk. Why should I accept that? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're causing the damage on your own, Matt. I'm merely a windmill at which you're tilting. —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not British (or in Britain) - so why not have the wisdom and dignity of leaving these actions to someone who is?

You've repeatedly complained that other users are "involved." Now you're complaining about my lack of involvement.

Dumb comment from you. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What, other than insulting me, is that reply intended to accomplish? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It no-doubt adds to your inability to see how far some people will go to keep this article away from criticism – esp by treating someone who has simply criticised it like crap using any 'edge' that they can.

Now you're stating that people in Britain are emotionally invested in the issue (with some easily swayed by these emotions, to the extent of lashing out at others). But in the same message, you just complained that I'm "not British (or in Britain)" and opined that I should "have the wisdom and dignity of leaving these actions to someone who is." Do you not see the contradiction?

Another dumb comment from you. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See above. —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly cannot see how much these articles divide Wikipedia too.

I see unanimous agreement that the article should exist, excepting one person. Is that the "divide" to which you refer?

You are so vain that I think you have been continually forgetting what the article is even about. As for the biased nature of a 1 hour 'invested' Afd - I'm no going to go into that again. You can't call the speedy both procedure and a credible consensus: but you are too lazy to see that. And yes, yes - it would never have worked in the end. Along the way you have shown massive bias on a delicate subject and been as clumsy as an admin can be. The part I read yesterday was not just apallingly written but effectively racist too, and the 'article' has been all over the place - so you can watch this space. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are so vain that I think you have been continually forgetting what the article is even about.

Again, why would you think that? When has our conversation even touched on this? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say, you will not have seen enough UK media (radio, tv - not just the bloody internet) so will not have a decent-enough feeling for this, and how it has divided many people in the UK over what this is all about.

I'm fully aware that the situation has been quite divisive in the UK (as is typical of riots and their underlying controversies). The issue of whether a Wikipedia article about the rioting should exist, conversely, has not been divisive among editors from anywhere on the planet.

What all the nutcases we've had passing by? Finally you are actually showing your underlying (an unacceptable) bias here. We'll see, shall we? I would say that about 50% of edits to Wikipedia are there to limit damage caused by incorrect information. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

By the above logic, there's unanimous consent to delete the article. (After all, everyone who disagrees with you on this point is either "involved" or a "nutcase," so their opinions don't count.) —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your totally determined and unwarranted over-simplification of everything (motives included), and continual demonisation of me (me v' s some of these editor-policy abusing partisans – including you? It's totally shit.) frankly makes you little better than that "'disruptive' mental health etc" troll who was rightly blocked.

When have I attributed your actions to "motives" other than a sincere desire to do what you believed was best for Wikipedia? How have my comments — in which I've repeatedly stressed my trust that you've acted in good faith — amounted to "continual demonisation"?

You are just a game player I think, and I'm wondering if you don't have a rep for it. Matt Lewis (talk)

You disregard my steadfast assumption of good faith (on the basis that it must be part of a "game") and respond accordingly?

I encourage you to investigate my "rep." —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You accuse me of being unable to "take a tiny bit of criticism," and this is how you respond to assertions that you accidentally acted inappropriately.

And you have the gall to call me disruptive for doing next to nothing wrong (then or after).

I've repeatedly outlined your series of errors in great detail. I suppose that I should be grateful that you've amended your stance to include the words "next to."

My errors IN YOUR OPINION. I've always accepted the policy issues you lying bastard. That was just a lie from you saying I've ammended my position there. You are such a bastard you really are. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My errors IN YOUR OPINION.

You asked me to explain how your behavior was disruptive. Whose opinion was I supposed to express?

I've always accepted the policy issues you lying bastard. That was just a lie from you saying I've ammended my position there. You are such a bastard you really are.

"I did and have done nothing wrong." Those are your exact words. You've now switched to "next to nothing wrong" (emphasis mine). Hence my above statement that you've "you've amended your stance to include the words 'next to.'"

I know you are not going cease this offensive attack on my standing as an editor here.

I've done nothing of the sort. You came to my talk page to criticise my actions, and I'm simply responding. At no point have I challenged your standing as an editor or pursued any sort of sanctions against you.

You know exactly what you are doing. I am wondering if you are not some kind of chuggalong drama queen, or just an egoist who needs to completely overwhelm someone you are in an uncomfortable disagreement with.

And you believe that I'm personally attacking you? What names have I called you? —David Levy 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Names? Why would you directly call me names when you can feed every troll on Wikipedia by repeatedly pissing on me from your articficial height? You just can't stop it until you've made someone say these kind of things. Then you can wet your pants laughing like a schoolboy when another amin comes along and blocks the person you've wound up to the point where they completely lose civility. Yeah - high five dude! If only you could Youtube Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my fault that you're being uncivil? I "made" you write the above? Do you seriously believe that? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David I said you should stop. I was entirely wrong - your responses are too good and, well, entertaining. Do please continue. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So speaks an admin who seems to have left Wikipedia for three and a half years and came back just before it looks like we are removing the powers from admin who never turn up. You are really credible are aren't you? You should have put yourself back up after that long at least. The above comment just adds to that appearance of piss taking. David is straight lying now about my previous position now - is that really entertaining to you Violet? It appears to be that it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you possess any knowledge whatsoever regarding the reason(s) behind Violetriga's absence? Do you believe that this is any of your (or my) business?

Are you aware that a user whose administrator permissions are removed due to inactivity can have them restored via a simple request? —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, thanks for that. It isn't my goal to prolong this back-and-forth, but I've never found it easy to walk away from an argument (especially one concerning my actions). In this respect, Matt and I appear to share common ground. —David Levy 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that is a bit stupid for an admin? It's your abuse of admin status that I have the big problem with. I'm a fucking editor, you idiot. Others know the distinction. Your childish behaviour will come back to haunt you here, and you've having a laugh over an incredibly serious topic. You are a really vain and shallow man. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, please drop the stick. Continuing this personal dispute for days is ridiculous. More personal attacks like this will see you blocked. Wikipedia is not about "reputations", it is about content. You seem to have lost sight of that in this pissing contest. Fences&Windows 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats a fair point (content before reputation), thought one does lead to the other. I'm going to have to leave it now anyway. I simply don't have the time, which has been wasted I agree - and a block would never see the end of it of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All administrators: I request that Matt not be blocked due to any incivility directed toward me. I don't wish to be accused of intentionally provoking such an outcome (i.e. baiting him into getting himself blocked). —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With all respect due, Mr. Levy, please grow a thicker skin. He will accuse you of anything he wishes to, and has done so multiple times over the last few days. It doesn't mean you're at fault for what he does in his inability to keep his emotions in check. Quite frankly, the fact that you've escalated this by bickering with him instead of putting a stop to his behavior as soon as it became clear dealing with him would be like dealing with a 12-year-old makes you look even worse, since as an admin, your responsibility is to the project, not a fragile flower like Mr. Lewis. (Edit: Well now that this seems t be over, I think I can say that, being able to look at this in restrospect as one event, you have helped him damage the project by failing at every turn to punish him when it was warranted. This was putrid administrating. The next mess he creates is on your shoulders.)

Deiberate failure to deal with this man's behavior is no better than active encouragement, as he has made clear that protecting his ego takes precedence and he intends to knowingly continue with these "innocent mistakes" in the future. Mr Rubino (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. For me to take administrative action regarding Matt would be a conflict of interest and abuse of my sysop permissions. —David Levy 03:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and this conflict leaves you unable to do your job because you "involved" yourself to an unprofessional degree. Mr Rubino (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The dispute began when Matt initiated this thread to criticise my closure of the deletion review. My only options were to reply to his messages or allow his accusations of impropriety to go unchallenged.

You seem to be suggesting that I should have blocked Matt. On what grounds? That would have been "unprofessional" (and highly improper). Adminship doesn't exist for the purpose of silencing one's critics.

The English Wikipedia has more than 700 active sysops. If you ever believe that administrative action should be taken, you're welcome to post a request at WP:AN/I. —David Levy 01:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that is a bit stupid for an admin?

Responding to accusatory comments posted on my talk page? You believe that the fact that I'm an administrator means that I'm supposed to stand back and allow them to go unchallenged?

It's your abuse of admin status that I have the big problem with. I'm a fucking editor, you idiot. Others know the distinction.

What distinction? The one that grants you immunity to say whatever you want and makes me an abusive idiot if I dare to reply?

Your childish behaviour will come back to haunt you here, and you've having a laugh over an incredibly serious topic. You are a really vain and shallow man.

I can't imagine what's led you to believe that I'm "having a laugh" about the England riots, and I take great offense to the accusation. —David Levy 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

why redirect?

why does "Chipzilla" redirect to "Intel"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.221.15 (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, "Chipzilla" is a nickname for Intel.

I didn't create the redirect; I merely updated it to reflect a page move. —David Levy 20:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking, again!

Re this: You said it could have more than one meaning... I was wondering what it could possibly mean to you when 'Delhi' was already linked, and that the three other articles linked to give ample context about the country? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone is familiar with Delhi. Those who are might not assume that a person is that type of Indian simply because he/she is in India.

You and I have participated in verbose discussions regarding main page links to country articles (and the sufficiency/insufficiency of context provided within other linked articles), so I'm not inclined to rehash that again. —David Levy 06:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How come I'm not surprised at that defence? I was using 'Delhi' merely as one example of the context you said was missing, used to justify your propensity to overlink. Other links supplying that context are, of course, 'Anna Hazare', '2011 Indian anti-corruption movement', as well as 'Delhi'. Of course, I also feel that 'hunger strike' has no business being linked either, but that's incidental. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, inclusion of the word "Delhi" (assuming that the reader knows where that is) establishes that the event occurred in India. That this is the relevant connotation of "Indian" is an inference, not something explicitly stated in the blurb. While relatively unlikely, it's entirely possible for a different type of "Indian" to be in India.

I assume that my response doesn't surprise you because we've discussed this issue repeatedly (and I've explained that such links are included on the main page for reasons in addition to resolving ambiguity). —David Levy 18:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the context and other links, it is, yes, "relatively unlikely" that the blurb may be referring to "Red Indian", or indeed any other type of Indian listed here. I was just hoping this endemic overlinking was going to finally cease to be a habit at ITN, but I guess from your response that I'm going to be repeatedly disappointed, at least by you, going forwards. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In previous discussions, I've explained why I disagree with your assertion that this constitutes overlinking (while agreeing that other examples did). You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but please refrain from acting as though mine (shared by others) has never been conveyed, professing bafflement as to why this egregious error persists. —David Levy 17:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Fbot's talk page.
Message added 03:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

general image filter

Hey David. You left several well-written and very insightful comments (as usual for you) at m:Talk:Image filter referendum/en and I'd love to get your input on a proposal I've written up here regarding a general image filter compromise that works without the dreaded project-wide category system. --213.196.212.168 (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dark-crystal-dvd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dark-crystal-dvd.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Just to make sure you do not miss this information related image referendum discussions:

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia" is not the same as "every single WMF project". Multiple projects have actually rejected NPOV. In particular, Commons—the project by far most affected by any decision about images—refuses to have anything to do with the concept of neutrality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Technically, it's more accurate to attribute the NPOV principle to various Wikimedia Foundation projects than to the Wikimedia Foundation itself. But in the context of a decision directly affecting every Wikimedia Foundation project, the distinction is immaterial. —David Levy 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Update for Sp-contributions-blocked-notice

Hello. The "IP address" part should be removed from Sp-contributions-blocked-notice because of mediazilla:22925 & Sp-contributions-blocked-notice-anon (previous discussion: WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 60#"This user is currently blocked" message). — AlexSm 15:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! —David Levy 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Damage

Yes, it makes more sense. 'Damages' means something else. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, after saving the previous version, it occurred to me that the noun "damages" typically refers strictly to monetary costs. Conversely, the blurb contains a monetary representation of the physical damage.

A Google News search then showed that while the term is used in the latter context, "damage" predominates by a large margin. —David Levy 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 England riots

Hello David. There has been a history of edit warring over the infobox location details in 2011 England riots. To try to stabilise this, and raise another closely related issue, I've started a discussion topic here: Talk:2011 England riots#Location details, widespread pattern of arrests. Since you've made many contributions to the article, I'd be grateful if you would come and comment. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your deletions

Please stop deleting the phrase from an article at DYK because in your personal opinion it is "used to spice up articles" and not appropriate. RSs use it. It has been used by RSs vis-a-vis baseball catchers for decades (including in the The new Dickson baseball dictionary, and Smithsonian Q & A: Baseball, and Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary). It has been reflected in RS coverage of this baseball catcher. This has gone through the DYK process, and been approved. The fact that you -- one editor -- have a personal view that is at odds with the decades of RS coverage, the use of the phrase in wp's coverage of baseball terminology, and the coverage of this ballplayer in RSs is not reason for you to impose your point of view on the community by deleting the phrase. Doing so while it is on the DYK page is especially troublesome. Many editors looked at this while it was at DYK -- pls don't edit against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the DYK item expired more than two hours ago.

Secondly, in no way does a DYK review constitute binding "approval" of an article's content. There have been numerous instances in which outright hoaxes and plagiarized text have slipped through. (I'm not suggesting that either occurred in this instance.)

Thirdly, no one disputes the fact that the expression "tools of ignorance" is used in baseball. But it's an informal term, appropriate for use in casual conversation and sports journalism but rarely appropriate for use in an encyclopedia (which maintains a formal tone).

It is, of course, appropriate for Wikipedia to mention the expression in our coverage of baseball terminology and our articles about people to whom the phrase is attributed (Muddy Ruel and Bill Dickey).

Likewise, it can appear in direct quotations attributed to specific individuals. But there must be a valid reason to include such a quotation (e.g. historical significance or direct relevance to an event covered in the article); a desire to mention the phrase is not a valid reason.

The term "tools of ignorance" has as much to do with Ryan Lavarnway as it does with any other catcher in baseball. Its inclusion in the article (accompanied by an explanation of its meaning) constitutes irrelevant trivia. Reliable sources have used the expression in connection with Lavarnway and countless other catchers simply because it fits their journalistic style (one not shared by Wikipedia).

Fourthly, you know perfectly well that I haven't acted unilaterally, as you previously reverted another editor's removal of the term. Additionally, Kevin McE posted a complaint on the article's talk page (to which you replied), and I'll direct your attention to WP:ERRORS, where a discussion occurred (and Modest Genius agreed that this was problematic). So I'm baffled by your reference to me as "one editor" (implying that I'm he only one to find fault with this). —David Levy 18:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Charitwo

He has rollbacked all talk page messages again. --#1 Fan of Queen (Talk | Contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

fixing of Blockade of the Gaza Strip talk page

Hi David Levy, I seen you moved the Blockade of the Gaza Strip page, but the talk page still links to the old name (Talk:Blockade of the Gaza Strip (2007–present)), can you move that aswell as only an admin can do so.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. My apologies for neglecting to take care of this earlier. —David Levy 22:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:ITN

I've raised the "plane crash" issue at Wikipedia talk:In the news where you are welcome to comment. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

I think you would make a great bureaucrat.--98.244.158.25 (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I have noted for future reference that the parentheses are italicized. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Image size

Hi David,

Regarding this revert: you reverted a change to the image dimensions with "We set a fixed 30px width for text alignment when multiple templates are stacked": however, I didn't change the image width, but merely added a height restriction as bulletproofing (as sometimes an unusually tall and thin image can vertically stretch mboxes). Was there another reason for that particular part of the revert? The rest of it was fine, and thanks for incorporating some of the additions made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I realize that the image's size was unaffected in that instance. I ran out of room to elaborate in the edit summary, but I did so in this one. We customarily rely solely on the width (not the height) because that maintains text alignment among the templates. A "30x30px" setting doesn't stretch the image to those dimensions; it maintains the native aspect ratio, constraining whichever dimension is larger, if either, to 30px (and the shorter dimension to less than that). So if the icon's aspect ratio were to change in the future, this could result in a width narrower than 30px (thereby throwing off the text alignment). If the aspect ratio doesn't change, "30px" vs. "30x30px" makes no difference.

A good example is Template:Historical, for which the "30x30px" setting resulted in an actual image size of 24x30px (shifting the text to the right, so it wasn't aligned with that of similar templates).

An unusually tall and thin image is problematic and shouldn't be used for this purpose. —David Levy 22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Point taken. Cheers for the explanation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note

Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"In the news" picture

What is the copyright problem that prompted this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emufarmers (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that it might be a by-permission image erroneously tagged "public domain." Please see User talk:Robert Bruce Livingston#File:Wangari Maathai portrait by Martin Rowe.jpg. —David Levy 10:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Macedonian_wikipedia.
Message added --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Prince Sultan's year of birth

No, you're correct; it does appear disputed. The infobox had just 1924 for awhile. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation.  :) —David Levy 19:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA

Thanks for the self-revert, but I'm curious: why only after the ETA event scrolled off? It didn't have a linked country in it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Basque" link was contextually equivalent; it's a matter of geography, not legality. —David Levy 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Main page

In response to your points, 1) I'm not going to go into more detail on this as its hypothetical - especially given the discussion is closed. 2) Something more than the featured article discussion page - such as Talk:Main Page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Until reading the above message, I didn't realize that the discussion was closed. This occurred seconds before I posted (and MediaWiki didn't report an edit conflict). I've self-reverted.

You certainly have no obligation to explain your reasoning, though I honestly would like to attain a better understanding.

2. Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "reasonable audience." I wasn't sure whether you were referring to its size or to the personalities of its constituents. —David Levy 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

1) No problem. I'll give a brief reply to this. With regards to evolution it should be noted that it is only controversial in the US, its not controversial here in the UK so I'm not 100% sure of how it is controversial.

In a debate I would probably argue that it evolution is a WP:VITAL article and that its not scientifically controversial. I would also make sure extra care was taken that the blurb was written neutrally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the controversy is primarily religious in nature. The theory of evolution offends people by conveying that the religious doctrines to which they subscribe are incorrect.

You refer to WP:VITAL. As previously noted, a subject's importance is irrelevant to the FA process and TFA section. So that isn't a mitigating factor.

This, I believe is key. When the TFA subject is something widely regarded as relatively unimportant (e.g. a video game), we might receive a small number of complaints (typically from newcomers unaware of the fact that importance isn't a criterion). When the TFA subject is something widely regarded as disturbing (e.g. a massacre), we might receive a small number of complaints (typically from newcomers unaware of the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored to be "family-friendly").

With the confluence of these two conditions, however, we had complaints coming out of the woodwork. People who tolerate subjects that are "unimportant but harmless" or "disturbing but important" were unwilling to tolerate a subject that they perceived as "disturbing and unimportant." The basic sentiment was "Why are you displaying a disgusting film as your featured article?!". This, of course, has no basis in Wikipedia's (or TFA's) policies and procedures. —David Levy 19:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that importance has no value with regards to TFA isn't actually true. According to Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests articles get extra points for importance. While it is a good idea to post articles that are unimportant as well as those that are important with the main page we do have to take into account the possible damage caused by posting something controversial over the benefits of posting it - that probably applies in this case. In the UK there has been significant controversy - above and beyond the murder conviction of killing about Vincent Tabak's porn use - even though this porn is less controversial than the article we posted.

If the blurb had been got right first time that would largely solve the issue for me and move it much more towards an "I don't give a fuck" position for me. That would definitely be achieved with a pointer on Talk:Main Page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:TFA/R points system is used to determine the dates on which articles appear, not their eligibility to appear at all. I'm addressing the latter.

I disagree that removing key details and a free image (a rarity for articles about recent works of fiction) constituted "getting the blurb right." I view it as censorship of encyclopedic information, performed purely because it was deemed "objectionable." —David Levy 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree at this point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.  :) —David Levy 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Wikipedia languages

Hi David,

You look to have been the primary maintainer of {{Wikipedia languages}} of late. There's a talk request to add Serbo-Croatian now that the wiki has over 50,000 articles: could you check it out? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Arora page

Hi David, a user has deleted more then 25 citations from the Arora page without discussion. Can you please check it out if you have the time. His user name is user:Sitush. If you could look at the history of the page before and after his edits, almost everything was removed.

Thanks a bunch Jokesshift (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist notices

Please make sure to always preview changes to watchlist notices before saving.[2] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I am doing research on Wikipedia in multiple languages to see how different Wikipedia websites enable people differently to act and contribute in their ways. A brief description of the study can be found on our project page on Meta-Wiki. The results would give guidelines for further development of Wikipedia in less developed languages.

As an active member of Wikipedia community, you are invited to take part in the study and share your experience about and understanding of Wikipedia with us. It would take 30 to 60 minutes of your time to have an online conversation about Wikipedia. I would be delighted to hear any of your ideas or feedback about the study. Please feel free to contact me with your questions and concerns related to this study and your participation. You can also find the email address on the project page.--WikiTafa (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ITN

looks liek NEW forgot to reset the timer afte the belgim addition 1/2 hour ago...could you do it?(Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)).

Done. Thanks! —David Levy 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

En dash question

Hi David. I was just glancing at the main page and noticed that in the Hitchens ITN blurb, an en dash is used for "British-American". Looking at MOS:ENDASH, I think it should be a hyphen, not an en dash. The relevant examples appear to be:

• Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry
• an Italian–Swiss border crossing; but an Italian-Swiss newspaper, for Italian-speaking Swiss
• Japanese–American trade; but a family of Japanese-Americans (or a family of Japanese Americans)

Seeing as you were the one who added the en dash (diff), I thought I'd ask you for your reasoning before potentially taking it to WP:ERRORS. Happy to be proven wrong, Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! It appears that I was mistaken. I apologize and thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've self-reverted. —David Levy 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise and thanks for the prompt action. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN

Line spacing mostly TBH, the line is somewhat short (at least on my monitor). IMO the more formal name fits better with a blurb entirely about the country, and specifically, the supreme leader of that government. Prodego ^talk 03:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Among English speakers, the country is widely known as "North Korea". Most people probably wouldn't even recognize the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

Regarding your second rationale, when Muammar Gaddafi died, should we have referred to him as the former leader of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? —David Levy 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably would have, but its a stylistic thing, and perhaps a personal preference of mine. If you think North Korea is clearer, that's fine with me too. Prodego ^talk 04:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

'Minor' edits

OK, point taken. Sorry. Sca (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't immediately understand the 'show/hide' feature. However, I don't quite see the need to hide the exchange. Sca (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

David, you might be interested in User:Kevin McE's comment on the Dec. 19 Kim/Havel issue on my talk page. Sca (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied. —David Levy 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that, 24 hours later, Kim's mug is still hanging around on ITN. Sca (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

His death's announcement still is most recent event listed. —David Levy 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong il

It seems that the current blurb wasn't what was approved, and a "new article" with recyecled content was added to the repertoire and linked in the blurb. In light of the problems with the Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il article, I suggest that you reverted to that blurb on ITN/C. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Levy. I've provided an explanation for my actions here for you. Feel free to add whatever you need to. Again, I apologize. The Moose is loose! 08:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Medvedev

In response to your note on Main Page Talk, I updated Dimitry Medvedev and attempted to nominate the update for ITN. But I'm very un-techy and the formatting defeated me, so I reverted that attempt. To me, the process seems extremely complicated. I'm afraid that in updating Medvedev I also failed to get the formatting of the reference correct. Sorry. Sca (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored your nomination and corrected the reference formatting. (You had an extra colon in the URL.) —David Levy 19:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'm terrible at any kind of computer code. Sca (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tucson

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Chill please

Umm... What is going on? Your views and beliefs aren't necessarily the only correct ones. Your attitude will only alienate people you are trying to convince (or perhaps we are not worthy to be convinced). I kindly suggest you take a break or something as we most certainly want to avoid a heated conflict when dealing with something significant like SOPA. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're perceiving heat, you're reading into my comments in a manner that I didn't intend. —David Levy 17:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the story behind this? I'm quite puzzled. —David Levy 17:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call users removing own comments before they get read as they feel it may be overly confrontational. Only people who are tying to put heat on another to stress them off of a discussion would make a fuss over them. Way to disregard my plee above. I was merely trying express a concern of mine but you chose to misinterpret anything I say. Frankly it is quite lame though it did work.

It is clear to me that you cannot be reasoned with and you will not even acknowledge points of others. I really do not want to interact with you in any manner in the future as it did leave quite a bitter taste. Really unfortunate.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, you're the one "putting heat" on the situation by "misinterpreting anything I say" as hostile (though I won't accuse you of deliberately "choosing" to do so, as I assume that it's a sincere misunderstanding).

I, like you, am merely trying to express honest concerns and engage in good-faith discussion. I'm not trying to be confrontational or make you feel uncomfortable.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you posted a message claiming that you'd neither replied to nor disagreed with me. I assumed that you removed it upon realizing that you were mistaken, and I'm wondering what caused the confusion (in the hope of preventing similar issues from arising in the future).

I don't understand why you perceive hostility on my end (even after I informed you that none is intended), and I'm truly sorry about any discomfort that you've experienced. —David Levy 21:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Elizabeth Boyer

Ok as for all a girl in life could be a strange thing.Even when you are struggling since you were little 11 year old Elizabeth Boyer has suffered allergy problems since she was a little girl. Even had a chance of dying twice. she does not like to mention it but she and her brother stay strong. as for her life she dreams of becoming an actress singer. it is exactly what she wants she loves to write songs and sing . As for a talent she plays the piano and some recorder and a little bit of guitar. To be continued.......................................................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizziebo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Added an image, but I don't recall having fewer choices. Stephen 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Carterton hot air balloon crash

I've reverted you page move of 2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash to Carterton hot air balloon crash per disaster naming consensus. Disasters are titled <year><place><event>, e.g. 2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash, despite there being no other "New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash". Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Portia Simpson-Miller cropped.jpg

Hi David, I see this file is fully protected for Main Page use, however, since it is no longer on the main page can it be unprotected and/or deleted? Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 10:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There was a possibility of the image returning to the main page, but that no longer is the case. So I've deleted it. Thanks! —David Levy 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: ITN (Syria bombs)

Thanks for the heads-up, David, but this really is not an issue which should be addressed; it ought to be sidestepped on ITN, rather than dealt with argumentatively as it undoubtedly will be. — Joseph Fox 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see the benefit of sidestepping the issue when feasible (just as we do with some English variety issues), but it might not always be possible to come up with wording as suitable as yours.

Please note that we've routinely used the format to which Swarm objects for quite some time. Until now, I don't recall any major disputes (though there have been occasional "fixes"/self-reversions of the "oops, my mistake; I misread" variety). —David Levy 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. When it can be done, however, such as in this case, it should be. If anything is mistakenly "fixed" by another admin this usually suggests there is a less confusing wording to be used. — Joseph Fox 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Had your wording occurred to me, I would have switched to it myself. —David Levy 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that Swarm is "not even interested at this point". And while I don't believe that a fully satisfactory resolution was achieved, I won't press the issue.

In future instances, I'll attempt to devise wording along the lines of that which you introduced. And if this seems unfeasible (or the resultant prose seems awkward), I'll fall back on our longstanding format. (I take Swarm at his word that he no longer cares, so there should be no further disputes unless someone else objects.) —David Levy 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-art-YorckProject

Template:PD-art-YorckProject has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

ITN links, again ;-)

This seems a bit reactionary. Firstly, English Wikipedia may only be of secondary relevance, given that the SOPA protest is the primary subject. That article isn't even correctly titled and scoped, but the issue is that WP enjoyed equal top-billing with Google and Wordpress. The whole blurb, including the link, gives the impression that WP was driving it all. Second blurb, all three linked articles have links in the lead section are pointing to Burma. The country link is therefore superfluous. Admittedly, your past argument about consistent linking is valid when applied to 'Burma'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

1. It's reasonable to argue that the English Wikipedia shouldn't receive such focus, but if it does, I feel that it should be linked. The fact that this is the English Wikipedia doesn't ensure that a visitor fully understands the phrase's meaning (i.e. that there are multiple Wikipedias and that "English" means "English-language", not "of England").

And to me, it seems more like special treatment to omit the link; it's as though this is a meta-item through which we're praising ourselves. ("You know who we are, so we needn't include a link.")

Nikkimaria has again delinked the term, claiming that it's "already linked in page header". (I see no such link.)

2. It was decided that we would link countries directly relevant to the blurbs (e.g. one whose government participated in the event mentioned, but not one where an accident occurred). —David Levy 22:06/22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on.

I just got a message on a page I was viewing that I vandalized the entry for Elizabeth of Aragon. I never went to that page and I certainly did not and would not ever vandalize any entry. What is going on here?????? I have the greatest respect for Wikipedia and I find this very disturbing. The revert ID is 623078. I'm very upset. Please get back to me to explain.98.116.34.27 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)98.116.34.27 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and a question

Thank you for your prompt response. I'm frankly amazed. Do you mean I should log on every time I go on Wikipedia? 98.116.34.27 (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?

Hi David Levy. In 2007, you participated in several discussions related to "new messages" banner hoaxes. At Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?, I cited one of your comments and noted your removal of many banner hoaxes. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom

A request has been filed for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. I have added your name as a party, since it is clear that you have been involved at pages that are within the scope of the action. Noetica^Tea? 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? Are you referring to my participation in discussions on the associated talk pages? —David Levy 12:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah David, that came across as quite perfunctory, didn't it? I had to do a few of those in a hurry. Of course I have no issue with you at all. We've had some very useful exchanges, and soon sorted out any frictions occasioned by our similar styles (as you pointed out). I have the highest regard for your work.

Like you, I was surprised to be named in an ArbCom request. It is unclear how the scope of the case will develop (if it is accepted, which looks likely). But there has been mention of the protracted disputes over naming of organisms at WT:MOS, in which you participated with more than 50 edits, I think. The problem seems to be that if people talk a lot about something they consider important, others take offence. JCScaliger has written at the ArbCom page: "Clearly five or six editors (none of them in this case) think their discussion in this corner is legislation, to be obeyed by all editors and left stable and unedited (unless there is consensus to change it, which is unlikely as long as the five or six decline to do so)." It would be unfair for me to be implicated in that affair (I made approximately one edit there, simply drawing attention to an initiative at WP:MOSCAPS that aimed at a consensual solution), if others who were central to it are not.

There is nothing to fear from such an ArbCom case, for you or for me (once a flurry of initial polemics is dismissed). I look forward to your participation, so that there can be durable solutions to long-standing systemic problems.

Noetica^Tea? 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Action of 25 January 2012

Hello! XavierGreen (the article's creator / the only editor who didn't want to change the title) has indicated on the talk page that he doesn't oppose a move to Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen (the title that's received the most support so far). Given the now-unanimous agreement for a move, can we please unprotect the page and tentatively proceed (with the understanding that discussion can continue)? It isn't certain that we'll ultimately settle on that particular title, but it is clear that the current title is overwhelmingly opposed. —David Levy 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and move it. As I've repeatedly said, the move protection was solely to prevent a page move war. If consensus has emerged for a new title then the article can be housed at that title. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! —David Levy 18:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Port Said Stadium disaster

sorry ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MoS template change

Hi David: you changed the link to "use common sense" to a (second) link to "ignore all rules". Is there consensus for this? Tony (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tony! I didn't change the link. It actually leads to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense (not Wikipedia:Ignore all rules).

The "small=yes" version previously linked to WP:Use common sense, a redirect that I bypassed when harmonizing the two versions. (The default version already linked directly.) —David Levy 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure; thanks, David. Tony (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear David,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Convenience

You (along with User:A. di M.) will probably appreciate: {{tq}} (for "talk quotation"), a template to do your in-post quotation of previous posts on talk pages. I created it to get people way from mis-use of the example text template {{xt}}, which I note you don't use, for quotations, but it also achieves what you do actually do with a lot less code.  :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. (-: —David Levy 05:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I noticed your recent redirect of the article G4 (Canada) back to G4 Canada after the user TBrandley moved the article. Your reasoning was unexplained replacement of natural disambiguation with parenthetical disambiguation. The same user also recently redirected the article Fox Sports World Canada to Fox Sports World (Canada) and did so without any explanation, so I was wondering if you could move the article back to Fox Sports World Canada (because, conventionally, this has been thought to be what its official name is for some time, since its inception, and the user has not provided any proof it goes by a different name) or direct me to an avenue where I could officially request a move. Thanks musimax. (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've reverted the move. The names "G4 Canada" and "Fox Sports World Canada" are used on the channels' respective websites, so they certainly appear to be correct. —David Levy 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN barnstar

		The In The News Barnstar
		For your constant attention to detail on T:ITN. Modest Genius talk 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! It's nice to be noticed.  :-) —David Levy 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko

I think you are missing a couple of points. Firstly, while Kumioko shouldn't hold it against all those who have problems with him, there have been people trying to derail what he is doing for years, and some of them do indeed display the WP:OWN characteristics he discusses. (As they say, just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you.)

Secondly Kumioko has acknowledged errors, and said that he will fix them. As far as I know he has measured up to that commitment.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Firstly, while Kumioko shouldn't hold it against all those who have problems with him, there have been people trying to derail what he is doing for years, and some of them do indeed display the WP:OWN characteristics he discusses. (As they say, just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you.)

All of that may be true. I don't claim to possess any first-hand knowledge of the underlying dispute, and I'm not taking anyone's side.

That's kind of the point. Kumioko apparently believes that everyone criticising his behavior is part of a conspiracy to sabotage the WikiProject. He also insists that this — not his edit warring — is the reason behind his block.

I merely want him to understand that he's becoming his own worst enemy (e.g. deeming edits with which he disagrees "vandalism", edit warring, evading the resultant block twice, and lobbing personal attacks and wild accusations). I'm trying to help him.

Secondly Kumioko has acknowledged errors, and said that he will fix them.

I'm aware of that. (He and I were discussing this when he got himself blocked.) I have no beef with the WikiProject. —David Levy 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is of course a counsel of perfection to say that we shouldn't let people get under our skin, and certainly one I have broken myself. Nonetheless I see no contradiction between continuing to advise people of that, and at the same time cutting them slack when behaviour apparently designed to rile them seems successful, as I would be inclined to do here. So no underlying criticism here of what you are saying - since we are saying the same thing, just pointing out that the background provides what we might call mitigation rather than absolution. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Irrespective of what's occurred in the past, Kumioko clearly is well-intentioned and has become emotionally overwhelmed by an unfortunate situation. Regardless of who's "right" or "wrong" in the underlying dispute, I sympathize with Kumioko's difficulties and genuinely wish to help him (by persuading him to help himself). —David Levy 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(To go off at a slight tangent) I do think we need a better way to forestall drama than we have now. I can think of at least three current major problems (by which I mean blocking level or worse issues affecting significant contributors) and one minor, which had rumblings before they erupted. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

I responded to your comments on my talk page=

Due to my block and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussions I was blocked from I responded to your comments on my talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

reminding someone of 3RR == gaming the system??

OK, so Nigelj and I discussed on the talk page - and I reminded him of the 3RR. However, raising the flag that the 3RR is here in Wikipedia is not the valid reason for removing my content.

As an admin, you are supposed to understand the rules here (and don't think of yourself as the God here - I contributed here long enough but I don't bother to apply for the admin status). Nigelj could not point out the reason he removed the content except that he said he has been using MySQL from 2000. Raysonho (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the content is valid and if you or Nigelj bother to go to the Wikipedia pages (eg. Apache Cassandra page or Google for the information - is either of the methods so hard to do?), then you can see that Facebook is the contributor of the projects. And as most you or Nigelj can say that I did not add the necessary references. Now answer me, who started this edit war first?? Raysonho (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And, I may have sounded rude, but that does not mean that I am wrong. If you or Nigelj think that I deliberately tried to add wrong info here (that Facebook as the contributor of MySQL), then let me tell you that MySQL, like many opensource projects, has many contributors. Listing Facebook as a contributor is not equal to saying that the MySQL project was founded by Facebook. Raysonho (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so Nigelj and I discussed on the talk page - and I reminded him of the 3RR.

You didn't merely "remind him of the 3RR". You attempted to exploit it to gain an advantage in a content dispute.

As an admin, you are supposed to understand the rules here

I understand the rules. I question whether you do, given the above.

(and don't think of yourself as the God here - I contributed here long enough but I don't bother to apply for the admin status).

I didn't even mention the fact that I'm an administrator, which is irrelevant. You brought it up.

Nigelj could not point out the reason he removed the content except that he said he has been using MySQL from 2000.

That's an inaccurate summary of the discussion. Nigelj informed you that the claims were not properly sourced. You responded by demanding that he research them via Google.

And you've been quite uncivil in that discussion, so I suggest that you brush up on this policy too.

Also, the content is valid and if you or Nigelj bother to go to the Wikipedia pages (eg. Apache Cassandra page or Google for the information - is either of the methods so hard to do?), then you can see that Facebook is the contributor of the projects.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and the onus is on you to properly attribute the claims to reliable sources. (Please note that neither Wikipedia nor Google qualifies.)

And as most you or Nigelj can say that I did not add the necessary references.

And that's a major problem.

Now answer me, who started this edit war first??

It doesn't matter who started it, but please see WP:BRD. —David Levy 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

reply

OK, so Nigelj and I discussed on the talk page - and I reminded him of the 3RR.

You didn't merely "remind him of the 3RR". You attempted to exploit it to gain an advantage in a content dispute.

Gaining advantage?? I improved the source and he started telling me "Do not edit war". If he thinks that I am going to start the edit war, then of course I need to remind him of the 3RR.

And, the reply from our amazing Nigelj, "a public-generated Facebook page does not count" - I really cannot help someone who does not read properly. The page is owned by Facebook, and like other technical pages at Facebook, are "Facebook pages". Facebook uses Facebook pages to communicate to the public. I don't think Facebook is going to release a video on Youtube to document something - so like everything else, the context is important.

If someone automatically declares that everything I added is wrong, then I really can't help him (or her).

Did Nigelj ask nicely?? And I reverted his changes and then left the message on the talk page all within 1 min, and he started reverting.

(and don't think of yourself as the God here - I contributed here long enough but I don't bother to apply for the admin status).

I didn't even mention the fact that I'm an administrator, which is irrelevant. You brought it up.

Yup, my bad.

Nigelj could not point out the reason he removed the content except that he said he has been using MySQL from 2000.

That's an inaccurate summary of the discussion. Nigelj informed you that the claims were not properly sourced. You responded by demanding that he research them via Google.

OK, so he said, "Perhaps something useful, true and well-sourced to reliable 3rd party citations, can be written on this topic, but I fear that this was not it". What untrue information did I add to the page??

And you've been quite uncivil in that discussion, so I suggest that you brush up on this policy too.

Well, if he did not bother to check and claim that I added wrong info, then I need to be "uncivil".

Also, the content is valid and if you or Nigelj bother to go to the Wikipedia pages (eg. Apache Cassandra page or Google for the information - is either of the methods so hard to do?), then you can see that Facebook is the contributor of the projects.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and the onus is on you to properly attribute the claims to reliable sources. (Please note that neither Wikipedia nor Google qualifies.)

And the other Wikipedia articles have references that are reliable sources. At least I can just copy the sources from those to back my claims.

And as most you or Nigelj can say that I did not add the necessary references.

And that's a major problem.

Even he did ask nicely or start off nicely, then I would not be as "uncivil" (I always treat uncivil people like that).

Like now, I am discussing "almost" nicely.

Now answer me, who started this edit war first??

It doesn't matter who started it, but please see WP:BRD. —David Levy 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think he started it first. But if the issue is just missing refs, then I can add them to the article. All one has to do is ask, not just starting an edit war and claim that I am wrong or blame me for starting a war. Raysonho (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaining advantage??

Yes. You attempted to exploit the three-revert rule by declaring that you inevitably would prevail (because Nigelj would "hit 3RR first" and be forced to stop reverting).

Did Nigelj ask nicely??

Nigelj expressed his objections without hurling insults (such as your comments about wondering whether he can read properly and whether he needs a new pair of glasses).

OK, so he said, "Perhaps something useful, true and well-sourced to reliable 3rd party citations, can be written on this topic, but I fear that this was not it". What untrue information did I add to the page??

Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Nigelj obviously believed that your addition wasn't "well-sourced to reliable 3rd party citations".

Well, if he did not bother to check and claim that I added wrong info, then I need to be "uncivil".

No. At Wikipedia, incivility is unacceptable, period. Even if you're right and he's wrong, that's no excuse.

And the other Wikipedia articles have references that are reliable sources. At least I can just copy the sources from those to back my claims.

Indeed, you can.

Well, I think he started it first.

Again, it doesn't matter who started it. Wikipedia isn't a playground.

But if the issue is just missing refs, then I can add them to the article.

That would be good.

All one has to do is ask,

Nigelj did ask you to "provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked". —David Levy 00:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(We really have spent so much time on this today)

So you claimed that I am gaming the system, but the fact is that everyone can raise the flag. He told me not to start an edit war, and I told him not to 3RR.

And David, really, don't give me a lecture on 3RR - you are here a year longer than I am, but I know the rules. And I know when someone can break the 3RR.

I find it insulting enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong.

And, how am I uncivil, if I am asking someone who did not read the ref about MySQL carefully and just reverted my edits to whether he could read or not?? Did he (or you) even bother to read the page??

Well, I asked you who started it first - just want to make sure we are on the same page. So you don't need to give me another lecture on edit wars and at the same time joined the edit war yourself.

Nigelj did ask you to "provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked". - and at the same time saying that my additions are wrong. Raysonho (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So you claimed that I am gaming the system, but the fact is that everyone can raise the flag. He told me not to start an edit war, and I told him not to 3RR.

You could have written "Let's avoid hitting the 3RR". Instead, you noted that Nigelj would "hit 3RR first". This conveyed that you could revert once more with impunity after Nigelj reached the limit.

Fortunately, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Editors aren't entitled to three reversions each.

And David, really, don't give me a lecture on 3RR - you are here a year longer than I am, but I know the rules.

Indeed, you're no newbie, so you should know better than to behave in this manner.

I find it insulting enough when someone who is unsure about a subject says that I am wrong.

At worst, Nigelj was mistaken. It appears that he misinterpreted one of the statements that you added, which was unclear. (I would have read it the same way that he did.)

But even if Nigelj were to violate Wikipedia:Civility himself, that still wouldn't give you the right to act in kind. As a veteran Wikipedian, you should realize that.

And, how am I uncivil, if I am asking someone who did not read the ref about MySQL carefully and just reverted my edits to whether he could read or not??

Wow.

Well, I asked you who started it first

And I told you that it doesn't matter.

"Nigelj did ask you to "provide cited, verifiable text that can be checked". - and at the same time saying that my additions are wrong.

And you believe that this justifies your personal attacks. It doesn't. Nothing does. —David Levy 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN (February 2012)

reportedly wouldnt make it nes/ITN-worthy. It seems affirmed, can we reword to tke out "scientists reportedly"Lihaas (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the article and discussed on the candidates page, "the accomplishment has not yet been independently verified, and previous claims of ancient regeneration have often not held up under scrutiny." —David Levy 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

America

Hi, David. Can you show me the policy page that governs the usage of "America" to refer to the United States of America? I tend to use American English, and we USians don't mean any offense to our Latin American neighbors by this usage. As I mentioned on my talk page, Spanish speakers in Latin America use norteamericano (i.e., "North American") to distinguish people (and countries) from "Latin America(n)". Oddly enough, this leaves Mexico in an awkward position, because it is sometimes unclear whether it is part of North America (English usage) or not part of it (Spanish usage).

Perhaps there has been an update since the issue was discussed at enormous length) in 2004-2006 (see Talk:Use of the word American/Archive 1). Our article on Names for United States citizens says:

• International speakers of English refer to people from the United States as "Americans", while equivalents of "American" are used in many other languages.

But I'm happy to follow any new policies that have developed while my attention was occupied elsewhere. Do clue me in. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. Indeed, "American" is the widely accepted demonym for residents of the United States. But we don't usually refer to the country as "America" (which is significantly more ambiguous than "American" is) within general prose. Our Manual of Style recommends "United States" (abbreviated as "U.S. or "US").

Incidentally, I'm a USian too. 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)—David Levy

I took a glance at that guideline page, but I couldn't find the section you're referring to - unless you mean Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations. Was there something about using or not using "America" that I missed? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Likewise, the page also doesn't explicitly advise against referring to the country as "Columbia" or "Giufoefeof". It simply advises us to abbreviate "United States" as "U.S." or "US".

I don't recall anyone proposing that we refer to the country, whose article is titled "United States", as "America" (or "Columbia" or "Giufoefeof") within general prose. —David Levy 16:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some advice, please

Hi David-- If you're still online, I have a question and am not sure where to take it; I'm a relative newbie here, and I see you're an Administrator.

A couple of weeks ago I somehow stumbled upon a move request here, and posted in the discussion. Out of curiosity I looked at the movant's page, which is of some interest. Once the move request was declined, I went into the article and cleaned up some of the juvenile garbage there - which edits have so far remained unreverted.

I also looked here and found some of the same stuff, but left it alone rather than pushing my luck at that time. Today I did return to this latter page and did some cleanup there of similar juvenile stuff, but this was all quickly reverted a short while ago.

I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with this person, but as it is, this article needs help. What is needed there, I think, is a mature editor, preferably with some professional expertise in the subject. In the meantime I'm not sure if I should just forget about the issue as being none of my business; and of course you may feel that the article is okay as it stands now.

Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks very much. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, but my opinion counts no more than anyone else's does. As explained at WP:BRD, it would be sensible to seek consensus on the article's talk page. If the response is insufficient, you could initiate a request for comment.

I hope that this is helpful. —David Levy 07:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate your taking the time to look at it. (The talk page there is a disaster, but I'll give it a try.) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi again, David - sorry if it seems I'm picking on you. More advice is now needed.

As you suggested for the previous problem, we had a pleasant discussion on the talkpage, but it did not result in consensus, so I have posted an RfC which seems to be going well.

Now the new problem is easily seen here with several related sections on the same topic. This is a different kettle of fish. It doesn't seem appropriate to post an RfC there - but in that case I have no idea where to take it. Of course the best thing for me, personally, to do is shut my eyes and walk quietly away. I can easily do that if it's what you recommend. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please attempt to discuss your concerns with Alan Liefting on his talk page. If that doesn't prove fruitful, our dispute resolution process is described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —David Levy 04:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Several other editors are already trying this approach, and he is dismissive of their concerns. Also reverts of reverts. I think I prefer to walk away and let someone else worry about it. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Author

Hi David, did you write this book? :D Just kidding... I just noticed while I was shopping. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a good laugh! :D

As a child, I enjoyed the fact that "I" developed the TV sitcom The Addams Family. Later, this drew many comments. —David Levy 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........

where can I sign up with your vast conspiracy, comrade? Carptrash (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. If you have to ask, you must be one of them. —David Levy 21:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold title on Early March 2012 tornado outbreak

The only other article I have ever seen this enforced on is April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, to be honest. To be honest, I really hate the way the intro sounds in those two articles...they remind me of the beginning of a news article or the beginning of an essay rather than the beginning of an encyclopedia article. I really don't see how "The Early March 2012 tornado outbreak was a deadly tornado outbreak that lasted from March 2 to March 3, 2012 over a large section of the Southern United States into the Ohio Valley region" is not an easy and natural usage of the title. If someone asked me the question "What was the Early March 2012 tornado outbreak?" it's pretty near the most ideal answer I could give, not what's there presently. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Early March 2012 tornado outbreak was a deadly tornado outbreak" is awkwardly redundant. (See the 2011 Mississippi River floods example at MOS:BOLDTITLE.) It makes no sense to state that "floods were floods" or a "tornado outbreak was a tornado outbreak". That isn't normal English, nor is it informative.

If someone were to ask "What was the early March 2012 tornado outbreak?", informing them that "it was a tornado outbreak that occurred in early March 2012" would be strange and unhelpful. I'd respond by providing the key details, which is what precisely what we're doing.

An important element is the fact that "early March 2012 tornado outbreak" is merely our description of the subject, not a formal or de facto name (and if no other tornado outbreak occurs this month, "Early" will be dropped from the article's title). Therefore, this phrase has no special significance requiring its presence in the lead (unlike Super Outbreak, for example). —David Levy 01:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the upsides hurricanes have...they all have a specific, official name, whereas tornado outbreaks rarely get a special name unless they occur on a special date (Super Tuesday tornado outbreak, 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak), are especially prolific (Super Outbreak, 2011 Super Outbreak), or affect a particular location much more severely than anywhere else (Andover, Kansas tornado outbreak, 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak). When we get an outbreak without some combination of those, we just have to name it ourselves, and I figure that those names are just as official as any name the press gives it seeing as the NWS only (rarely) officially names an outbreak if they release a service assessment over it. Surely there's some better way to phrase that first sentence that at least names the event. If it weren't for the title and infobox and I came across that article for the first time (with no awareness of our naming patters for tornado outbreaks) I would be highly confused as to what to call the outbreak. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I figure that those names are just as official as any name the press gives it

No, we explicitly differentiate between information obtained from reliable sources and material of our own creation. If a subject has no formal or de facto name in the real world, representing our description as "official" constitutes original research.

If it weren't for the title and infobox and I came across that article for the first time (with no awareness of our naming patters for tornado outbreaks) I would be highly confused as to what to call the outbreak.

But the title and infobox are present, so that isn't an issue. (It wouldn't be one anyway, as we don't seek to encourage the use of any particular name; "early March 2012 tornado outbreak" is merely the description that we're using because every Wikipedia article needs a title.) —David Levy 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: "A series"

It seems it depends on the journalist so I may have been a bit hasty, but the BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph have all used it as a plural. Feel free to reinstate it however. — foxj 06:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ITN Belize

nice wording but remove "the countrys general election" to "an election" as is customary. Als do we need :"narrow"?Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! We often refer to "the country's _____" when naming the country earlier in the blurb. Ending the sentence with "an election" wouldn't read well.

We usually describe the type of election, which is particularly important when other elections were held in the country on the same day (as in this instance).

The word "narrow" seems appropriate, as this appears to be the narrowest majority possible. —David Levy 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

iVE NEVER SEEn "the country's..."

"narrow" was per the caveat removed ont he page to let readers decide, but not bothered.Lihaas (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

::iVE NEVER SEEn "the country's..."

I don't know why.

"narrow" was per the caveat removed ont he page to let readers decide, but not bothered.

I don't understand the above sentence. —David Levy 06:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As for not using "the country..." see the Russian example on the page right now, posted days before this. That is what i most often used.

On the election page there was the dubious phrase (subjective) "razor-thin" which was removed so as to let readers decide instead of telling them the "narowness".Lihaas (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As for not using "the country..." see the Russian example on the page right now, posted days before this.

That pertains to a single office, so we can simply say "elected President of Russia". Such wording wouldn't work for the Belize item.

On the election page there was the dubious phrase (subjective) "razor-thin" which was removed so as to let readers decide instead of telling them the "narowness"

"Razor-thin", in this context, is a figure of speech. "Narrow" is used literally (and its accuracy seems indisputable). —David Levy 07:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why, weve posted that for numerous parliamentary elections (and it also mentions PM Barrow which is a single office)

Still not WP to decide...wioll take to ITN instead of ere ;)?Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why, weve posted that for numerous parliamentary elections (and it also mentions PM Barrow which is a single office)

The Russian item pertains only to a single office, so the wording is less complicated.

Still not WP to decide...'wioll take to ITN instead of ere ;)?

I didn't insert the word "narrow", so I don't know why you raised the issue here in the first place. —David Levy 09:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar Point

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for remarkably pithy commentary: "[C]onsensus is an outcome of discussion, not a type of discussion. Editors' comments contribute to the consensus-building process." 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list thread "Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?". It made my list of "Smartest things I've seen on Wikipedia". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) —David Levy 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ecuadorian protests

Would like to hear your opinion on a matter. There is an issue at 2012 Ecuadorian protests, where ive spelt out (twice) the issues on the talk page, even admitted wrong and accomadated and wanted/called for discussion only to be attacked by threats to close the page without discussion of issues and a blanket revert against BRD norms. Could you give a moment to oversight that discussion and give your view.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for the moral support. :-) You and User:Polyamorph seem the only ones who understood what I meant by "arguments against my interpretation of the guideline", and you explained it better than I ever could. Diego (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (-: —David Levy 21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dodgers

(this is a cross-post from ITNC). I don't usually question admin decisions (especially yours), but I only see 2 or 3 after-the-fact opposes (one from a noted anti-American). This seems like a case of whomever yells loudest gets their way. Hot Stop^UTC 04:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

Dude, we've been doing this for years. There's no harm in keeping them on talk pages at least. The stuff in article space usually gets reverted quickly anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Scottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I fail to see how "harmless pranks on April Fool's Day" = "vandalism". Many other users are doing harmless things to articles, and none of them are getting chastised for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Check the previous April Fools' Day listings at WP:APRIL. Many of them show prankish edits to articles, and not a single one has ever been called out as vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello David Levy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene

[3] Thanks for being there. --87.79.106.79 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ITN Taliban Attacks and East Timor election

Can you please come post this and this? —Bzweebl— ^talk 04:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNR for elections

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)