User talk:David Gerard: Difference between revisions

D-S-L! D-S-L! RAH RAH RAH!

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 31 Mar 2005)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff, please mention what it's about in the header.

---

Explanation for revert?

I was just browsing the page on Amherst, Massachusetts and I noticed that you reverted my edit. The edit added new statistics to the Demographics section based on statistics published by the town and sent to residents (yes, I live there). It wasn't sneaky vandalism. Is the Demographics section exclusively for those generated automatically or something? LizardWizard 08:49, Apr 2, 2005

Crikey, I don't even remember that one. I can only assume I hit the revert link in error. My sincere apologies! - David Gerard 11:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientology template

I hadn't realized the history, though I must say I don't follow the argument against having a "related" topics template in this case--I created it because I found myself wishing for one when navigating the articles. And the category listing is ill-organized and filled with links to marginal articles. I think the template is a good idea, in other words, and it seems to me like the downside of having it is rather slight, but I won't press it if the issue has been settled. Are you convinced that it was vetoed for good reason, and not because of a POV that wanted to minimize access to some of the critical articles? (I've run across editors that seem to be motivated by that POV.) BTfromLA 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: You reverted a bunch of additions to L. Ron Hubbard that I made last week as well as reverting the template. Did you have some objection to those? BTfromLA 18:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I just hit revert on the template. Sorry about that.

The template was removed by me after the category was created, so I don't think it was wanting to minimise access :-) Possibly we need more subcategories of Category:Scientology. A lot of navigation templates in general are a blight upon their articles.

Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it was a natural category and not really suitable for a navigational template - the articles don't go in any natural order. Just because I think it might be beneficial for people to read articles on a particular subject in a particular way doesn't mean it's appropriate to try to push that with a template. Possibly the List of articles about Scientology could be more structured a given way. But it strikes me as inappropriate to push a particular way of reading in an article.

If a particular type of article is particularly relevant in one article, I'd tend to think it probably belongs in a ==See also== or, better still, in a relevant paragraph in the article. - David Gerard 19:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I see the template functioning differently than you do. To me, it doesn't (or needn't) direct an order of reading, except insofar as the template includes "major" articles and omits others. What it can do is provide a clear, easily accessible outline of the related articles. I see from your link that it was designed to present a series, but it seems to have evolved into another, and I think valuable, function. (See, for example template:creationism). In the case of Scientology, I think a quick summary of related topics is very helpful, as there are many articles that people interested in the subject may want to explore, but which are not self-evident search topics (e.g., Scientology beliefs and practices, Scientology controversy, Religious Technology Center, Operation Clambake, Narconon... the list is long). Indeed, the Scientology operation itself is many-headed, and at times the organization has actively tried to blur the connections between executives, Hubbard, the Church, and the many affiliated groups. Why force readers discover these confusing connections only through links embedded in the article, when a useful outline can be made available on the same page as the article? As and far as I can tell there wasn't much of a consensus before the earlier template was blanked (one user who didn't object, nobody who actually agreed with you, far as I can see). Certainly there was no discussion before my version was blanked. I request that you reinstate the template and allow it to be considered by users on several of the key Scientology-related pages. I hope the fact that it popped up again spontaneously (i.e., I thought it was needed, not knowing of the prior history) might serve as evidence that it is premature to unilaterally delete it.BTfromLA 02:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite - it went through the TFD process in proper order (one of the early ones, may not be logged). Lots of people want templates that aren't necessarily a good idea, that's why we have a policy. If people want to search the topic we have a ... category - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I at least suggest that when templates that others may want to reinstate are voted deleted, that some sort of flag appears to that effect if someone tries to rewrite it. It was the first time I'd set up a template, and I wasted a good 90 minutes organizing that thing, only to have it blanked within hours. BTfromLA 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You got a point there. Hmm. - David Gerard 08:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing this. BTfromLA 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Poll:_Speedy_criterion:_.22non-notable.22

Hmmm. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That could be one of the worst ideas I've seen in a while - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sjoukje Drenth Bruintjes

• Delete not notable. I am Dutch and I know quite a lot about cults and NRMs and I had never hears of her. Andries 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded - David Gerard 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David, you're Dutch? Wow, you sure fooled me! I thought you were from the land down under, not the lowlands! :-) JRM 10:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

X Window System

I strenuously object to the way you butchered my enhancements to the X Window System. You weren't kidding when you recently asked for help with the page and said that contributions would be edited mercilessly. Why on earth would you remove mention of X supporting touchscreens, for instance? You owe us all an explanation, starting there. Your edit amounted to vandalism.

And why would you remove any mention that application specific GUI's can be built with X primitives, virtually forcing people to infer that the only kind of GUI's that can be built with X are desktops and Widget systems? That is just plain WRONG. Are you really that ignorant? You should get used to the idea that learning is a better way to spend your time than teaching with regard to this topic since you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the X Window System.

I make a very good living by developing X apps, selling X solutions worldwide and pushing the X Window System to its limits. I know damn well what it is and what it isn't, what it can do, and what it can't do. I resent your hatchet job on my work here in explaining what X is.

There are way too many people like you at Wikipedia who think that everything they don't understand or agree with is vandalism and that the only appropriate response that they need to exercise is to revert. Shame on you. GeneMosher 20:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response on Talk:X Window System - David Gerard 12:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced

During the TFD discussion (now at Template talk:Unreferenced), the usage of this template was strongly favored by the "Keep" voters only to be used on the talk page of the article. Please consider following that, since this looks extremely unprofessional otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

The discussion really doesn't seem to indicate that at all - David Gerard 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Apparent_vote_packing_on_WP:IFD

Wondered what you would make of this. Overt campaigning by targeted spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would note it on the vote. Vote-packing tends to be viewed in a very jaundiced way on VFD, for example - David Gerard 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Already did that.

I'm going to raise a discussion on the subject of talk page spamming (including extensive posting of identical "substantially identical" material in any talk space, not just user talk) on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). A hard limit of ten or so may be something that there would be general agreement on--that would enable an editor to raise an issue with his contacts or notify editors of a small set of articles, but would not permit flagrant use of talk pages for spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks on RFA

Thanks David; I appreciate the vote for my adminship. Oh, and I can completely relate to the "red-pencil hand twitch" as a lifelong editor myself. Happy editing! Antandrus 00:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

David,

Thanks for correcting my mistake. I could've sworn I read somewhere that his ban was by the ArbCom, but I knew in a vague way that Jimbo was the force behind it. Obviously what you say explains it much more clearly. I did think, however, that he had terms of parole or somesuch?

I've also already spoken to Danny; he has said he will "handle it", however there have been three problems that have been reported in as many weeks (the last, falsely, by Mike himself, where he accused another user of being a vandal without proof and then reverted his changes without explanation). I'm not so sure this experiment in rehabilitation isn't coming apart, especially given Mike's bullying behavior (he threatened an anon with being hounded out of Wikipedia by parties unknown, for example). I, however, have deferred to Danny, and therefore I'm only making enquiries and keeping up with the situation at this time, rather than taking any action. If nothing else it would be a shame if so many peoples' hard work and effort went to waste without completely exhausting all options.

Thanks again, and if you come across anything else pertinent, please let me know. Wally 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recusal reason?

You have asked me to recuse several times, but, despite me repeatedly pointing out you had provided no justification when you did so, you continued to ask providing no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. We are now down to just six arbs on the case, so I am definitely not going to recuse just for the asking (and never mind the horrible precedent that would set to be abused by some of our more creatively antisocial ArbCom defendants, as I'm sure you'll see if you look back through AC history). What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of your responses to my comments show that you're very terse with me. You tend to jump down on things I say, rarely giving me any comments in a neutral manner and never anything phrased in a positive way.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines [1] - March 4-6 - You sided with Snowspinner by reinstating a "Beyond policy" section. All of your reverts were to Snowspinners version, with no attempt at compromise. You misused admin rollback [2]. Your talk page contributions were not helpful. Not until I wrote a new version of it did the reverting stop.

Considering that you wrote an injunction which implies that I improperly revert Wikipedia: pages without using talk, your failure to set a good example is worrying. In this instance, I did everything right -- encouraging discussion on the talk page, gathering opinion, and forming an agreeable resolution. This is actually very common with my editing. As long as this issue is presented as evidence against me, you are involved and have a clear conflict of interest.

The whole issue with User:The Recycling Troll and the unblock you did for User:Ambi when I reported her for 3RR. I won't bother with diffs here, because the issue is that these are very recent events which I criticized your actions openly. It's too soon after, and there may still be some resentment there. Is it fair to me to take your word that there isn't, especially when you've proposed those baseless injunctions? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

None of these are sufficient as recusal reasons, particularly when we're down to just six on the case. And mostly they come down to "I disagreed with you so you must hate me so you should recuse," which is not a recusal reason.

You may also note that if a case goes below six arbitrators, Jimbo reserves the option to (a) unrecuse everyone (b) call in new arbitrators as he wishes, because under six is too few. Are you sure you want this to happen? - David Gerard 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make light of this. I am not saying that you just disagreed with me. I am saying that on one case, you were a direct party to at least one incident being called in question. You've also shown, by being dismissive of my requests to recuse and on other occasions, that you have too strong a desire to be part of this case and inflict punishment on me. I could also show that you have a strong friendly relationship with Snowspinner, another conflict of interest. As far as there being too few Arbitrators, you can ask Grunt to un-recuse (I don't really understand his reason), and we can wait until Theresa and/or Delirium comes back. Beyond that, I trust Jimbo. I don't see how you can expect that I will put aside my apprehension based on the quorom situation alone. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell

User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [3], just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [4] because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [5]. I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question re. Instantnood vote

David,

Evening. I just have a point for which I'd like to request clarification regarding your vote to accept the Instantnood case which I felt would be better handled here. You mentioned that the content issue wasn't really a factor to you and cited Principle 7 in the WHEELER decision. Nowhere have I seen Snowspinner mention concern for civility — merely a complaint about the alleged drawing-out of process and "immun[ity] to consensus" — and indeed, he specifically notes that there is no request for a ban or severe discipline on his or jguk's part, which makes me wonder how civility is an issue, especially given that no one once uses the word. To me it seems an issue of consensus and procedure. Could you help me understand your point-of-view a bit more cogently? Wally 21:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I stated in my acceptance, I found making thirty-five separate polls on one question indicated some severely problematic behaviour was happening at some stage - David Gerard 21:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

E-mail re: sockpuppet

Hi David, did you get my e-mail about a possible sockpuppet? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't get back to you on that one. I want to look, but I've asked the AC if they think I should yet. There's lots of politics associated with me using the tool at all, so I've been ridiculously cautious in even looking. See m:CheckUser for heated discussion. I find the situation very annoying and hope to be able to be more helpful in more cases - David Gerard 21:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

change to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

Hey, I thought we were discussing changes to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes on the talk page before changing the article. Hmm, should I revert your change because you weren't following the rules, or perhaps because it increases the net verbage in the article (apparently violating your own rules)? Nah, I'll just post a note here and let you know I'm actually kind of amused. -- Rick Block 04:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote pending

Can you please vote at Coolcat vs fadix at arbcom? Your vote is still pending. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"proportional representation" clause of NPOV policy

Hi David. As you probably know the global warming related articles become from time to time an unpleasant battle ground. In this case we have a complete disagreement about the interpretation of the proportional representation clause of NPOV policy. As you are a member of the ArbCom you probably have a lot of experience with such cases and thus I would be happy to hear your opinion on the matter.

The discussion is mostly between Cortonin and me (Marco Krohn) at the moment, see Talk. Cortonin's edit in question is [6], with lots of additions of quotes of several experts and non-experts. [7] is the version of the article by Cortonin.

In this case I do not think that the conflict will last longer, even JonGwynne (who in general supports Cortonin) used Vsmith version for further edits instead of Cortonins, but nevertheless it would be interesting to hear an experts opinion on this specific part of NPOV. best regards from Hannover (Germany) -- mkrohn 09:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know! I'm not going to call myself an expert on NPOV ... I'd say in general it really has to come down to a case by case editorial decision sorted out between the editors. That's not something that can be achieved by application of a mathematical formulation.

As a non-expert reader on this particular subject, it looks reasonable to me to mention all POVs. They're certainly of interest

As an editor, I know that representing a given POV properly will sometimes require more space than may be strictly proportional. An article should be well-written, not just measured according to proportional amounts of space. (This is writing, not just documentation.)

Essentially, it's all an editorial decision and an exercise in working with people you may strongly disagree with.

A possibly useful exercise: do another temp version of the article, where each side tries writing a fair description of the other side's POV.

Thanks for your answer. I hope we solve the dispute quickly in the near future :-) best regards -- mkrohn 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the useful benefits of Wikipedia editing is gaining a strong ability to see the other side of a discussion ... - David Gerard 11:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template_talk:Cleanup-importance

Thought you might be interested. See also discussion on WP:AN/I concerning User:Grace Note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)