User talk:David Gerard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 13 March 2008

Wikimedia Foundation

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 3 (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 4 (1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2006)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 5 (1 Jan 2007 - 31 Dec 2007)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to WP:RFCU unless you're letting me know about a particular problem we've been tracking, in which case I look here far more often.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mindbenders-1971-cover-ISBN0854350616.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Australian Music Industry Awards

I would have added the info for the 1990, 1991 & 1992 awards but I haven't found a complete listing of who won which award - if you have any info on more than just who won the golden WAMi in 1991 ;) then let me know.Dan arndt (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to ask would be WAM. Ask for press clippings, they'll have 'em. (I left my archive in Perth and it's jussssst dusssssst ... unless there's a paper or two in a box on a shelf in the front room.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA, and the pithy "not insane" comment. ;) The RfA was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! - David Gerard (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR discussion

Hi David, there's a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#The_FoF_regarding_David_Gerard that you might like to read. Kosebamse (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC arbitration

Hi. Could you please advise whether you anticipate posting any statement or evidence in the IRC arbitration case soon? As you may have seen, I am abstaining from voting on any findings regarding you pending an opportunity to review your comments, but cannot continue to do so indefinitely. Thanks for your anticipated response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed. Public note here. I have a new appreciation of the difficulty people brought before the AC have in fitting writing up a good statement between real life - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I'm not sure if you noticed my mention of an edit summary of yours on the talk page of the proposed decision, but do you have time to discuss the edit summary you made here back in June last year? "reverting page to a version that doesn't suck, as 0wnz0r of this here project page." I realise that sarcasm doesn't come across well in printed media, so I wanted to ask if you were being sarcastic here or serious about owning the page (I think that leetspeak is sometimes used like this in a sarcastic manner)? I was thinking of noting this on the evidence page, but wanted to ask you about it first. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original statement answered this already - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. Thanks. This raises two further questions in my mind: (1) Would you be happy for the page to be in the Help: namespace? (2) Why rely on people to read edit summaries instead of making the "owner" point clear on the page itself? I appreciate you may be busy, and have already e-mailed the arbcom, but I'm hoping something useful comes out of all this. Possibly the arbcom decision will address such points, but possibly they won't. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created to avoid ambiguity and complaints from the very people who trolled it leading to this case, so I can't say I care where it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I can't say I agree about calling it trolling. I accept Bishonen's statement that it was a genuine emotional response from Giano and Geogre, followed by FUBAR on all sides. But thanks for taking the time to talk. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --El on ka 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fry

Regarding your recent edit to Stephen Fry. The placeholder image was originally in use in the infobox, but a consensus was reached that it should not be used. Have a look at the discussion on the talk page for details. For what it's worth, I think the article looks better WITH the placeholder, but we have to bow to consensus when it is reached! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "three no, one yes" straw poll is now binding consensus? You know, I was joking when I said "'Consensus' means a 7:3 vote on an obscure talk page" - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole placeholder image thing is a bit over the top. I have never seen a situation where these result in an image being uploaded, and they are unsightly. In my opinion, your resources could be spent on more meaningful contributions to the project instead of flooding it with unnecessary images. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, I have seen many when they have resulted in a new free image being uploaded. I wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. In the case of Fry, I'm now looking around for a suitable freely-licensed image ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the person yourself? More often than not they are more than willing to do so and it saves us from being subjected to this crap. I think the absence of any image at all is more than enough to tell people that an image is needed. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong. They do make Wikipedia look unfinished, but that would be because it is. (At least it's better than the previous version of the placeholder.) We are in fact working on precisely that: pointing out that if you want an image that's not horrible, then properly releasing a good promo under a proper free licence will get you and us what we want. See the newly-added Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. Once that mechanism's working smoothly, we'll be doing some active promotion of this channel. We've actually put some thought into this matter. In the meantime, placeholder images do in fact gain us photos we wouldn't have otherwise, so are (except in the case of current teen idols, where they attract nothing but copyvios) in fact better than no image - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephen Fry article has been plagued with copyvios for a while now, which is why I put the placeholder there in the first place. We've had everything from Blackadder screenshots to QI DVD covers, with no reasonable images we can use at all. Just as an aside - I prefer articles to have the placeholder, I'm just going along with what the majority appear to want! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fry is apparently quite the fan of Wikipedia, so hopefully just contacting him or his agent or whatever may well work! - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please uncheck whatever AWB option converts <references /> to {{reflist}}.[1] Per {{reflist}}, "there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references". Gimmetrow 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, sorry about that - I saw that in the default AWB changes and was wondering myself if that one was a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup: 12 January 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday, 12 January 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I'm unlikely to make it this time. Mind you, what we need to do is set one up at the Pembury. Not in the city, but certainly enough Wikipedians as regulars ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McIntosh

HTH, Lupo 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it so much I thought I would share it

Wikipedia:Don't just ignore the process WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already at Uncyclopedia:Process is important, complete with "Satan hates his job too" picture ;-) Uncyc is CC-by-nc-sa, but I wrote it and GFDL is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knol

Thanks for your contributions to the knol article. You went through the article and capitalized the word "knol" whenever it was a proper noun. We had a discussion about capitalization of the term in the talk page. I'm not going to undo your changes but please, read the discussion and I leave it to you to undo your changes or keep them and explain in the talk page. Thanks! DuckeJ (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mission-earth-1-the-invaders-plan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mission-earth-1-the-invaders-plan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Check Children

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Security Check Children, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Security Check Children. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Solaris8-cde.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AfDs

Can you please be more polite? Can you please stick to commenting on whether or not coverage in secondary sources seems to show notability in these topics, as opposed to commenting personally on me? Please? Cirt (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to put it than "you are woefully ignorant of the subject area you are mass-nominating for deletion", because you are. I'm sure you don't like hearing it, and I have no question of you doing this in good faith - but that doesn't mean you have good judgement, as I fear you are conclusively demonstrating you do not. Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on commenting on me personally in every single AfD? Why can't we have a discussion based on the notability of the articles? Please, David Gerard, I would have expected more from you, this is really not appreciated. Please. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Er ... that would be because you are the person who is in fact doing the mass-nominating. As such, your subject area ignorance is in fact directly relevant. The obvious solution is not to mass-nominate articles for deletion in an area you are clearly ignorant of. "Notability" is a guideline at best, and one which is hotly questioned because of its overuse by the sincere but ignorant in mass nomination of articles in subject areas they have no knowledge of. The "reliable sourcing" guidelines are guidelines at best also, and need a lot of work per subject area. You do realise that for Scientology there are plenty of cases where Usenet articles are suitable sources, because that's where the history of Scientology 1995-2000 actually happened? You didn't know that? This is what I mean when I speak of the hazards of mass nomination in a subject area you are ignorant of - you can end up looking exceedingly foolish, and can expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have AfD discussions based on the subject matter and whether or not there is enough coverage in secondary sources to warrant notability? Can we please not try to shift the focus of the debate to parsing my level of expertise? Cirt (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Cirt (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And you nominated "Tone scale" for deletion rather than using your alleged knowledge to fix it? Surely the latter would serve the reader better.

I will be working on the articles, and have asked others to help (and, FWIW, specifically asked them not to comment on the AFD unless they're a regular Wikipedia editor already, as it's not a poll - that the very best thing they could do would be to work on the articles). However, ignorant mass nomination for deletion is a problem, one that seriously needs attention, and one that this is merely the latest example of - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Please see the recent AfD I nominated for Fear (novel). A user from the AfD showed me that there was enough coverage in independent sources, per WP:NOTE, and I voluntarily withdrew my own AfD. That's all I want - a discussion based on whether or not there is independent coverage of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me politely by commenting about the articles and not about me, that any of these articles have significant coverage in independent sources as per WP:NOTE - I will voluntarily withdraw any of these AFDs. I do wish you would be more polite and AGF though. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Look, I'm sorry things recently seem to be getting heated relatively quickly. I apologize if it came across that I was mass deleting things I was ignorant of, but that's not the case. I just don't want to assess notability based on my own personal opinion, but rather based on whether or not there is coverage in independent sources, enough to have an article that is based on these sources, and not based on WP:OR, or on primary sources written by Hubbard/Scientology, which then opens up the tendency for WP:OR. So far you haven't really given much assertion or evidence of coverage in independent sources about any of these subjects - but just keep on commenting again and again about me. I'll do my best to try not to get offended that you are doing this and I will try to assume good faith that you mean well in your comments. Again, if you just show a couple examples of some coverage/discussion in independent sources that are not primary sources - I will voluntarily withdraw that AfD. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - I also come to realize that I should not have sent these all to AfD at the same time, but one at a time, and for that I apologize. I will not do something like that again. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.185.159.249

I saw that this IP address was indef blocked by you back in 2005 beccause it was believed to be an open proxy. I came across it while doing some user talk shared ip tagging (at User talk:204.185.159.249). I don't think that it's likely to be an open proxy or a zombie computer since the address is registered to an educational institution, so I was wondering if you would object to my unblocking the IP address? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

Hi David. There's a discussion ongoing at AN/I regarding your block of User:Piperdown as a sock of WordBomb. Just to let you know, and that we would appreciate your weighing in their with your comments as to the block. Apparently, Piperdown has been blocked for some time but requested unblock review just today so User:Cla68 has requested community discussion - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the discussion is here [3]. Thincat (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duh - sorry, my bad. At least I had the link right :) - Alison ^❤ 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, that discussion has really heated up in the last day. As soon as you're online it would be very helpful if you weighed in. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check

Hi, would you mind having a look at this diagram and telling me if it's more or less accurate?

Are oversight & CU basically synonymous with ArbCom + ex-ArbCom?

And if you know of any method at all to measure anon editors, that would be cool too.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/i/ boroud yur werdz

User talk:Jimbo#WikiNews is a crack whore. I'm totally doing science with my . . . well, you know. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard (talk · contribs), perhaps now would be a good time for you to provide feedback on my actions, as well as my apology to you regarding my admitting I was sorry for nominating multiple AfDs at once? Cirt (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*blush* Yes. I shall tonight. Sorry for the delay - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology to Cirt

I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on several AFDs last week. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better.

When I get a spare bl**dy second (stupidly busy at work and home), I look forward to working with Cirt on our Scientology articles :-) There's quite a lot to be done ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If that's how you feel, you may wish to comment at User_talk:Jimbo#WikiNews_is_a_crack_.22harlot.22_.28someone_didn.27t_like_my_term.29, and/or at Wikipedia:Ani#JustAHulk_flaming_on_Jimbo.27s_talkpage.. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*boggle* You know, Jimbo's talk page really is the greatest crank magnet on the whole wiki. I'll try to think of something worth saying there ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of WP:WEA page

Hi there. Following some discussion on the talk page of the Proposed decision page of the IRC Arbitration case, I was wondering what your views were on the future of WP:WEA after the case closes? I don't know if you are aware that there was a second MfD on the page, which was withdrawn by the nominator as the arbitration case was in progress? Anyway, the first MfD is here, and the second one is here. Since the IRC case has included some pretty clear signals that the page has a specific function and is owned by you, I thought it would be best to get your views on how to handle any future deletion nominations. Would you view those nominations as valid? Could the function of the page be fulfilled another way or in a different location? Would you consider merging the content back to the main WP:IRC page? Would you consider moving the WP:WEA page to your userspace (or meta)? I guess the questions really boil down to whether the discussions that originally led to the formation of WP:WEA are still valid, and if so, whether those discussions over-ride community processes such as MfD? It might seem like a difficult question to answer (or maybe it is simple), but one of the reasons I'm asking is that if the arbitration case closes without any resolution of this issue, there may be more drama. It is possible that a pre-emptive action by you could avoid future drama, which would be good news all round, really. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really owned by the arbcom, looks like, after Jimbo indicated that yes, the arbcom really does have the power to act on bad things happening there. I haven't been on IRC in months and don't anticipate being there again soon, so I should really pull back from overinvolvement. I'm not wedded to the page's existence myself. It's All A Tricky One. - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page is now listed for deletion (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#WEA_MfD). Your input would be appreciated. Kosebamse (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies David, I stopped by to let you know - I'd assumed you'd seen the post on the arb case proposed decision talk, or village pump. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED!

Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

Can you please comment on what your post of May 14th, 2007 on that talk page specifically requested of editors? I would like to remove category Living persons, per the category disappeared persons page, with the understanding that BLP concerns should still be addressed. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may want to remove the BLP cat but I can't see him getting any consensus to do so as there is still no evidence she is dead. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spinal Tap logo.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows what this week's hoop to jump through for fair use is, please feel free to put it on the image page - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Rouge admin

Wikipedia:Rouge admin, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge admin (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Rouge admin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alexfusco⁵ 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You?

David, You created Wikipedia:Rouge admin? Wow, I'll try to treat you with a bit more respect. Meanwhile we are just coming on wiki with the 2008 Wikipedia DVD (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection/additions and updates for changes versus this year so far, so if you want to influence how it goes now is a good time. If you can help encourage people to help that's good. We are trying to push some of the volunteers onto WP to work here. --BozMo talk 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember creating it! I'll let the world know :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Bias warning

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

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

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I created it specifically to salt it, I think I'm just fine with that - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not shocked

Just very surprised, and glad that nobody was looking over my shoulder. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-D Now you have to write Labium (insect)! - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I have to do is rewrite insect mouthparts-- it's rather impossible to talk about the, er, parts in isolation, especially with stag beetles on one end of the spectrum and butterplies on the other. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to your post

FYI, I have linked to your post regarding the issue of the word "vanity" in AfD debates. See Wikipedia:AN/I#216.231.41.66_Threatening_to_Sue_Wikipedia_over_VfD and Wikipedia:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Loony:_a_novella_of_epic_proportions. Tyrenius (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GodLove.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scientology Handbook, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scientology Handbook. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PiperDown

Hello. There's been a recent thread at WP:AN that resulted in the unblock of User:Piperdown, a user that you indefinitely blocked. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

I heard you used to have an interest in scientology. There's an article called Project Chanology about world events you might want to check out. It's possible you may even be involved in it and if so, for curiousity's sake, have you done any of the worldwide protests against scientology that members of Project Chanology have done? You're rather famous on the english wikipedia so it would be cool if you did. 66.53.212.30 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYRB

Thanks for your kind words. Regards,--Wageless (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list thread - comment

I was reading the mailing list archives, and noticed among other comments in that thread, the following: "That Wikimedia takes a proactive approach to ferreting out possible copyright violations - and BetacommandBot is a perfect example of how we take proactive care with this stuff" - BetacommandBot is an interesting case, in that it technically doesn't look for copyright violations (it actually looks for non-free images that fail to mention somewhere on the image page the article they are being used in). That many of those images are in fact lacking non-free use rationales, or lack any sort of claim of fair use, is a fortuitous overlap. The same number of possible copyright violations might be detected if someone got a bot to randomly tag images for people to check! And the definition of a "copyright violation" is interesting as well. I think it is best to reserve that term for copyrighted images that people upload under a GFDL tag, or fail to provide a source, or otherwise completely deny or fail to reveal the actual copyright status. Fair use is not in itself a copyright violation. Though any non-free use rationale on Wikipedia can indeed be contested, that doesn't make it a copyright violation.

The other main thrust of that thread, people uploading their own images under fair use, is just rehashing old arguments. It is clear (though I made this mistake myself at one point) that the upload screen quite correctly insists that if you are the author of the text or image, you must release it under a free license (or into the public domain). The point that people seem to be missing (though I haven't read the whole thread) is that someone else can upload the image for you and claim fair use, but, and this is the crucial point, you can only do this under Wikipedia's EDP (WP:NFCC) if the image has previously been published. That (and the namespace restriction) immediately eliminates quite a lot of the self-made images that people want to upload but don't want to release under a free license. It's ironic really, though - people don't want to freely release the pic of themselves that they put on their user page, because they don't want the image to end up on Commons and have some random person use it to illustrate an article in the Japanese (say) Wikipedia, or have some random person use it for whatever reason, but then are told that they can instead link externally to a geocities (say) webpage where they can put the picture. From where, of course, anyone can download the picture and do exactly the same things (well, not putting it on Commons, but you know what I mean). It just seems silly to freely release a picture that you created for a specific purpose of putting on your user page, and which isn't part of the content of the encyclopedia.

Does Commons have a way of dealing with such non-encyclopedic images, or does it try and tag them as "picture of Caucasian male in early 20s" and "Japanese girl in late 40s", and so on, and hope that someone will find a use for such pictures? Otherwise, the pictures are being used in the sense of being a free webhost. Ditto the "meetup" pictures. See WP:MEETUP, though I suppose those could be useful for a future "history of Wikimedia meetups" free-content publication. No encyclopedia content, but then Commons serves more projects than just the Wikipedias. It would be nice, though, to be able to document Wikipedia history in a way that isn't susceptible to being rewritten and redistributed. Sure, the wiki process is good for creating the meta-history books, but after such documents have been finished, there should be a way to deposit a permanent record, and I'm not sure the GFDL doesn't work against the process of archiving permanent records. I guess what I am saying is that stuff inside the archives can be GFDL (and reused), but the overall archive and how it is arranged should be more restricted. Does that make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Boyd AFD

I've replied to your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler). I don't know quite for sure what you believe I misinterpreted along the way. Would you mind following up on the reply I left there to yours? Thanks, Metros (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and assumption of bad faith

Where did this come from? Feel free to disagree with me on the merits of the article, and yes, I agree, Edison makes an excellent case for the article to be kept. But please assume good faith on my part. What makes you think that I wouldn't do any research before nominating? Apparently Edison has found what I haven't been able to find. Kudos to him. But that certainly doesn't warrant your incivility and gross assumption of bad faith. This is completely uncalled for. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no question of your good faith. I do strongly question your judgement, and would suggest a few weeks of nothing but article writing before wasting AFD time further - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to raise your recent comments on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:David Gerard. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your comment "I ... would suggest a few weeks of nothing but article writing before wasting AFD time further" is concerned, feel free to go through my contributions and User:Aecis/Hall of Fame. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your confusion of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Per comments left at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:David Gerard, refrain from incivil comments that you have left at numerous AfD's. They are not constructive and may fringe upon a personal attack. As an editor who has been here since 2004, you should really know better than to stoop down to such petty jabs. seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" does not mean "assume commonsense". Indeed the cockup theory is often the only civil assumption available to explain an action. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Com comment at AFDs

Please assume good faith rather than suggesting that every nomination by a particular person should be severely scrutinized for creating a nomination about fictional articles. It is entirely possible that not every single editor of Wikipedia is aware of every single arbitration case that is currently pending. Metros (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with these people who can't tell calling judgement poor from assumption of bad faith? Did you read the above sections before leaving what appears to be a hit'n'run comment? - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if a person has no basis on which to judge, how can you call their judgment poor? If a person is totally unaware of the arbitration case, they don't have a basis to judge on. Metros (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest they learn something about a highly contentious area before considering they have the judgement required to nominate topics within it for deletion. Surely asking for people to know what they're doing isn't asking too much? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To a casual Wikipedian editor, there's no reason for that person to even realize such meta issues exist. How are they to even know it's a highly contentious area? I don't see a reason to question that person's judgment just because they are not a highly-involved editor who sees "the other side" of Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly boggled that you consider deletion nominations suitable material for a casual editor. AFD's noted (press-noted!) hostility to commenters with a low edit count suggests you're dead wrong on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you carefully read the injunction it says "any currently existing article", and the Hooves and Harlots episode was created later, so the injunction doesn't apply. Addhoc (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Alexander (author)

Thank you for commenting on the article for deletion but in the future please refrain from making comments about the nominator and stick to the subject of the AFD and why it should be kept. I found it very uncivil that most of your comment was about my lack of judgment than as to why the article should be kept. --Ozgod (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we're talking about something as important as the matter of deleting a topic entirely from Wikipedia, the judgement of the nominator - and whether they're wasting precious time on AFD - is a highly relevant matter. I really don't see how you can claim it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your fourth comment regarding this matter. Perhaps you should be changing your behaviour in accordance to other user's comments. seicer | talk | contribs 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the response to BetacommandBot on fair-use abuse demonstrates, that counts for very little. Perhaps you could answer the question I asked elsewhere. rather than attempting to dodge it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred you left a message on my talk page about how you feel about my nomination of the article rather than your comment on the AFD being about how you feel about my lack of judgment rather than why the article should be kept. The whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Wikipedia; not an area to air your opinions about other editors. --Ozgod (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as the recent media attention to AFD demonstrates, poor judgement on the part of nominators and participants is precisely the actual problem. Therefore, claiming that people are not allowed to name the actual problem actively hampers dealing with it - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there is a flaw with the AFD process and how AFD nominations by all mean air your concerns on the talk page. Again, an AFD is about articles for deletion which is a discussion about the article in question. If you'd like, feel free to make a request to create ENAFD - Editors Nominating Articles For Deletion - to better facilitate you in expressing your concerns and opinions. As you feel that editors are cluttering AFD with "silly" nominations you too are cluttering the process by airing your opinions at an inappropriate time and venue. --Ozgod (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be attempting to ignore the issue by trying to steer it somewhere you can ignore it. I suggest this is very much not the best move for the encyclopedia, even though it would make you personally feel more comfortable - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs: Max Pawlus, Matthew Kozioł

Hi, could you explain your votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Pawlus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł? Thank you. Visor (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to WP:CSB should detail what systemic bias means. In this case, assuming that Polish subjects are covered online to the same degree as English-language subjects - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see deleted revs, from which it is not hard to figure out that Kozioł is a hoax. Pawlus? Google.pl doesn't do so well. There's no Polish-specific news search I'm aware of, so I tried Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta: nada. Paint me surprised that one of the 4 ghits is some splod on an American Friends-United style site. It's one thing to argue against the notability guideline fetish and general laziness of nominators, quite another when you want to ignore WP:V and include what are very probably hoaxes. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and shall take more care in future - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comments

I've been closing off a few AfDs, mainly those now clean of the odd injunction from the committee on Episodes and Characters. I'm not sure your comments are entirely fair to all the nominators you have pointed them at, as I don't suppose most people think to check for an arbcom injunction (of possibly the most sweeping scope ever) before nominating something for AfD. It seems a little unfair to suggest banning people from AfD for what might not even really qualify as a mistake (ignorance being a reasonable defence in this case). In any case, the injunction is dispensed with now, so you're done, I hope. Incidentally, if media attention has you jittery, then I'd think that the tone of your comments would be very likely indeed to attract salacious journalistic attention more than the nomination itself. Splash - tk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD comments

Dear David Gerrard, when you wrote "jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator [etc...]" [4] of Coredesat's actions, I'm not sure you were aware that the article was 1) greatly improved since it had been nominated 2) speedily deleted as an unreferenced stub that made no claims of notability 3) send to AfD by the admin who undeleted it. I really find it hard to fault Coredesat for 1) undeleting the article and 2) sending an newly undeleted and unreferenced stub to AfD. Coredesat's actions seem hardly unreasonable and clearly done in the best of intentions, and I don't understand why you need to unload such contempt on him. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ChrisO (talk · contribs) took care of this. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Foobaz (talk · contribs) added a fair use rationale for this one. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

I don't like these torch-and-pitchfork affairs either [5]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Tony, you had no problem with community action earlier in the ArbCom case. David, I really think you ought to retract your last statement. They have a term for those who undo others administrator actions without consensus. It's called wheel-warring. It's something you can lose your mop for, and I don't think anyone wants that. The vast majority of the people who have contributed on AN have stated flat out that a multiple-time caught sockpuppet master deserves a block or a ban. As stated previously, the ArbCom has allowed the community to extend sanctions that they considered to not be strong enough. We have the primary exhibit in that, not two weeks old, in Archtransit's case. If you want to oppose, fine, whatever. But I strongly urge you to take back your threat to wheel-war. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept community consensus, holding my nose if necessary. If there is one admin prepared to unblock then the requisite level of consensus does not exist. Moreover, as I remarked earlier, there is surprisingly strong opposition to the proposal. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tony, Consensus does not mean unanimity, no matter how much you want to reframe the debate. And be totally honest, the only thing you're surprised about is that it's gotten this far without someone closing the debate and stating "We know better then you". SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the banning policy again. It's quite explicit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or read WP:WHEELWAR One shouldn't undo another admin's actions without consensus. Looks like when it supports you, consensus is "50% + me" and when it doesn't it is "It has to be unanimous" SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the banning policy. It's all explained in there. Accusing somebody of wheel warring for carrying out a policy action is not constructive. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have enormous respect for you. Yet I really hope you soften your statement about unblocking. There's an unresolved tension between the definition of a community ban and the definition of a wheel war and no one wants to see another arbitration case follow on the heels of this. Whether or not that outcome would actually happen, your post does raise worries that it could. I hope Wikipedians on both sides of the fence can set aside our individual differences and resolve this situation harmoniously. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An acrimonous debate over three sections of WP:AN is in no way a "consensus" on a community ban; any such block would be entirely against blocking policy. And I think someone trying to raise a lynch mob in anticipation of an arbcom decision not going their way is a matter of grave concern - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shared your concerns about process when this idea was first floated at the proposed decision talk page and was surprised to see the only arbitrators who responded at that time cite Archtransit and state that they would not object to a community ban proposal. Regarding the lynch mob characterization (an inflammatory phrase that would be better to jettison if possible), I objected to Jehochman's first move for a community ban discussion because Mantanmoreland deserved a fair chance to present his side of events. Many of the people who now support a siteban were willing to extend good faith to Mantanmoreland but sorely disappointed by a defense that was largely predicated upon a partisan stand in in an offsite dispute, and that doubted both the Committee's and the community's fitness to question his actions. We can agree to disagree about some of these points, I hope. More than anything else, I'd like to see a sober and rational discussion that leads to a firm consensus. Durova^Charge! 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, can I ask if your stance is in any way related to discussion you may have seen on the arbitration-l mailing list? Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, re User:Samiharris sock tagging

On WP:AN. Lawrence § t/e 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Split_from_above:_User:Samiharris_sockpuppet_tag On WP:AN]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen|e]]</font></span> 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
+==Request for clarification==
+Please comment at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland]].  [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)