User talk:David Gerard: Difference between revisions

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 6 (1 Jan 2008 - 31 Dec 2008)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 7 (1 Jan 2009 - 31 Dec 2009)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 8 (1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2010)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 9 (1 Jan 2011 - 31 Dec 2011)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 10 (1 Jan 2012 - 31 Dec 2012)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

The article Nexus (magazine) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn good question. This thing was really well-known in Australia, but finding third parties talking about it may require access to paper - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Sitesupport#Wikimedia, I've posted a {{editprotected}} there which would change "Wikipedia" to "Wikimedia". Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is just a quick note to say that you may be interested in having a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikissentials Your name was listed as one of the users that was interested in another proposal similar to this. Regards ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David You are most welcome to call us to explain your stance on Train2Game - however, why you belittle TIGA, get the operator incorrect, remove links to places like City & Guilds, Microsoft etc is beyond us. We have lodged comment on the main contact area. Eric Swan — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwanPR (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other eyes welcomed on Train2Game - above is a PR article-cleanser - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have forwarded everything to the Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwanPR (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam We have reviewed numerous comments re Train2Game.

(cur | prev) 01:52, 27 January 2013‎ Qworty (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,872 bytes) (-603)‎ . . (→‎Courses: rm unsourced promotional material) (cur | prev) 19:05, 26 January 2013‎ Pinkbeast (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,475 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (ref does say that they advise on the content.) (cur | prev) 17:27, 26 January 2013‎ Deskana (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,431 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (fix again...) (cur | prev) 17:26, 26 January 2013‎ Deskana (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,430 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (Fix) (cur | prev) 17:25, 26 January 2013‎ Deskana (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,423 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (Fix. The source does not say TIGA "operates" Train2Game, merely that they are partly responsible for it and offer a diploma for completing it.) (cur | prev) 13:27, 21 January 2013‎ David Gerard (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,309 bytes) (+1,227)‎ . . (skillstrain is in fact the same company as train2game) (cur | prev) 13:20, 21 January 2013‎ Pinkbeast (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,082 bytes) (-1,185)‎ . . (Undid revision 534159003 by Pinkbeast (talk) - er actually that was stupid of me.) Above there are a number of claims and counter claims.

We have been contacted by a number of listeners who are also Train2Game students. Therefore, taking just just a few examples and thereby raising questions; 1. As WikiPedia claims to support education, why have the Train2Game courses been removed? 2. A user has made various claims about the ownership of train2game and yet in the first paragraph the article states there are two within Train2game. Therefor how can SkillsTrain be written as a reason for an edit? 3 Again, as Wiki is very supportive of students and education, why was the achievement of the students gaining a Guineas World Record removed? 4. More recently a ref to jobs was removed. The link does ref jobs for a leading job agency and also games news - I cannot see blatant PR on the link site so why was it removed? 5. The Wiki Foundation stats, in an email forwarded to RTI, the UK Chapter is responsible for content. Therefore, who is the person responsible for both content and should the case arise remove inappropriate members of the UK Chapter? 6. It is widely acknowledged that today many companies do not place all accreditation and or operational practices on their web site so it is impossible to ref them with 100% certainty, therefore when did you speak to TIGA, Train2Game, SkillsTrain, City and Guilds, Microsoft, Guinness Book of World records?

Statement of policy. RTI is regulated by the UK Broadcast body OFCOM. Any person or company that feels a broadcast unfairly depicts a person or company has the right to complain to OFCOM for any wrong doings - RTI complies with this policy.

Awaiting your replies Regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wiki Foundation stats, in an email forwarded to RTI, the UK Chapter is responsible for content." See, that bit's a lie. If it wasn't obvious from [1][2][3][4] and of course [5] - you appear to be the PR company.

(Coming from an IP that's a home broadband account at slovanet.sk, no less.)

(This sort of thing is why I have to remind myself that there are PR companies on Wikipedia, and then there are PR companies on Wikipedia.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David

Please don't think I am a PR company - RTI is not.

Why did you delete the entire thread - should I get someone to come over to the British library to ask you? Happy to get a contributor to come over if that is easier for you, which would you prefer?

Also we are still awaiting your answers to the questions posed, please? They are all there in the history.

Regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what or who is RTI supposed to be? Certainly not any media company listed under RTI. If you're claiming to be third-party journalists, why the edits to the article? And if you're UK journalists under UK legal remit, why the Slovakian IP? - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David there are many entries on then internet for RTI, just Google it. We test reaction in many ways as will any bonifide journalists.

Now there are questions above we are awaiting replies to for a show. We prefer to give both sides the chance to comment. The listeners have advised of there views, now you have the opportunity to share your views before the show. If you chose not to that is your call and if you do that we will happily say you chose not to answer. Regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on Google. I note you are not giving e.g. a link. And any media person gives a contact name, and usually a number - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Radio Tatras International, which is not a broadcaster any more, just a podcaster. Name, if any? Media professionals in my experience always give this. Note that I've been a Wikimedia media volunteer since 2005, so I have slight experience - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Jan Telensky"? He's the CEO of SkillsTrain and majority owner of Train2Game, and also the sole owner of RTI. Oh, and apparently the publisher of half a dozen "blogs" astroturfing himself and his companies. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir It does indicate that you should also read the stance of Wikipedia, to assist here is a quote from the WP page on radio broadcasting, "Radio broadcasting is a one-way wireless transmission over radio waves intended to reach a wide audience. Stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast a common radio format, either in broadcast syndication or simulcast or both. Audio broadcasting also can be done via cable radio, local wire television networks, satellite radio, and internet radio via streaming media on the Internet." I have not visited the Radio Tatras International before this message. However, I have now visited it and it very clear that others also believe they are above Wikipedia's own stance. Also to gain a "ref" would mean visiting the RTI web site. That would clearly show the station has a stream plus many other services including terrestrial outlets. It is a shame that a dynamic and very commendable idea of a free reference service seems to have lost its way. Never mind, thank you for your public statements. You are most welcome to make contact via studio@rti.fm , like the majority of bonafide broadcast researchers we use the station name. All that stated, if you do not wish to answer the question submitted to you simply reply stating you do not wish to reply. Thanks RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't visited their Website, but you work for them? Short memory, these socks. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I was referring to the inaccurate Wiki Page for RTI. How do you know I wear socks? As it goes, the only reference you suggested available about the World Record is clear for everyone to see ;-)

Just out of interest, when you visited the RTI site did you not have your speakers turned on? Had you had sound on you would have heard the automatic stream - funny that. Enjoy the rest of the day RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again Psychonaut- gosh playing sec for David now. Sorry I missed you comments earlier about an Ltd. No what you should be looking for is an SRO. I did look at some footage of Dr Telensky and he said something very different to CEO - I would like to see the Companies House records of the claim you make please. Regards RTI

PS David I'll share, with respect, why five years in a PR position is still considered by many to still be starting out. However, not today. Today I need to contact the main WP Press Office, cheers all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like RTI is now behind a petition for the UK government to crack down on Wikipedia, which is "dangerous" and causes "devastating injury" to people. Despite them advertising it in a press release (and presumably on their Postcard from Poprad radio show) it's garnered a meagre three signatures. The Postcard on Poprad episode on Wikipedia is 1 February 2013 Part 2. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, the search/replace algorithm you're using for this replacement is too broad. I can understand your change of Magnús Magnússon to Magnus Magnusson in links to articles about the television presenter, but I don't think converting his name to the non-diacritic versions is appropriate for other people with that name, like Magnús Magnússon (strongman). See your edit to List of Icelanders. Graham87 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, well spotted! I changed Magnus Magnusson because he didn't use the accents, but of course Magnús Magnússon did. Thanks, and sorry about that :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request initiated for the article Alternative medicine to be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. I'm notifying you as major contributor to the article. Relevant talk page discussion found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vital articles, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Vital articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Vital articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Warden (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You prodded this article Sorcha Faal, and some editor deprodded it. Can you let me know if you take it to AfD? Not canvassing, it's a request to be kept informed per Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate_notification Note that it was previously at a train wreck of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorcha_Faal, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm not convinced it's notable - being quoted by other sources does not constitute a usable article source - but I will do the cursory checks myself first, at my leisure, and will let you know - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination) - essentially, it's a BLP of someone barely notable with no high-quality sources about the subject, and should be deleted forthwith as a BLP hazard - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Sorcha Faal entry from the deletion process as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states: Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. As I posted on the Talk Page for this entry, a August 2012 deletion discussion took place wherein the editor determined that he could see no clear consensus to delete.Kmt885 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, it doesn't work like that - what you've noted there is the procedure for the {{PROD}} template, not the normal deletion process. Articles can be nominated more than once through the AFD process - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else reading this talk page could stop by Sorcha Faal and its deletion discussion, more eyes would be most welcome - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're in it, I'm curious what you thought of Andy Greenberg's book. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, haven't seen it - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, did you actually read his paper? I did and the quote used in the article is only part of what he concluded. My rewrite (which was written fine thank you very much, that was a rude and unnecessary comment) was a more complete summary of his conclusions. The way it is written now does not mention his critique of the previous systematic review and I think that's an important part to mention. The randomized controlled trials part can stay out since there is another part that mentions that anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I see the sentence about his comment on the previous review is intact. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you by any chance add some sources to Bridge Publications (UK)? I thought of PRODding it, but thought that if you wrote it then it's probably not a hoax or completely non-notable.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, but it may not be notable - it's something I created years ago when I was looking into Bridge Publications (Scientology) - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Sam Whitmore is sort of like a media analyst for PR agencies and I saw this tweet conversation which started with him asking Jason from the WMF PR department to discuss PRs on Wikipedia. I mentioned you may be the right person for him to talk to, since WMF is not involved in editorial and it might be better to get a "community spokesperson." CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your userpage recipe, I can't resist the urge to point you towards this by Toothpaste for Dinner, in case you haven't seen it already. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen! - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:P (I came looking, after seeing your "\o/" at another page, to see if you were an EveOnline player, which afaik is where that flavor of emoticon arose. o7 = salute, etc.)

ʕ•͡ᴗ•ʔ (i love that text emoticons are still evolving, almost 2 decades into my first encounter with them! I discover new forms every year. (A pox be upon yellow image-file smileys!)) –Quiddity (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Sannse on #uncyclopedia, IIRC - also \o_ for raising your hand, /o\ for covering your head ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

london, we have a small problem then, interested? sats 16:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

whuh? - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nah, looks like you dont deal with psychos on the loose - just open office these days.. is that th case? sats

Depends, there's some strange people in the OO-sphere ... just been doing a pile of research and discovering all sorts of interesting OOo-history. It's Sunday, this sorta thing's relaxing - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hahah - Perth hasnt changed much since you were here, but there are more of them, whatever they are. If you look at my recents,(not the trying to rise sysops, seems I tried raising some really bonzer chaps in that lot) it might be an interesting exercise in understanding the driven... but then if it is not your taste, then hey, enjoy your sunday afternoon and ignore the lot of them I say. ciao for now. if you do prod, well, you never know... sats 16:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Gerard,

I found your name in the Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and want to get rid of a question.

Pichilemu is a city and commune in Chile and has 749.1 km2 (289.2 sq mi) and a population (2012) of 12,866 with a density of 17.18/km2 (44.5/sq mi).

The creator of the pages, User:Diego Grez aka User:Lester Foster aka MisterWiki, has accumulated approx. 450 articles or better "pages" (55 people-pages, 24 populated places-pages, 369 Pichilemu portal on this day-pages‎, etc), 27 Categories, two templates and a portal about Pichilemu.

He self is included in the English Wikipedia as Diego Grez, with following categories:

• 1994 births
• Living people
• Instituto Regional Federico Errázuriz alumni
• Liceo Santa Cruz alumni
• Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu alumni
• University of Chile alumni
• People from Pichilemu
• People from Santa Cruz, Chile
• Presidents of the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center

Pichilemu Categories, pages and images

Templates

Template:Villages in Pichilemu

Template:Pichilemu

Portal

Portal:Pichilemu

Wikipedia

It is undisputable that some of the pages belong to the WP, like Pichilemu (a good article). Other articles like Portal:Pichilemu/On_this_day/April_4 are not needed.

I think that one after another would take a lot of time and work, but a bulk delete would be inappropiate because there could be more than 2 or 3 valuable pages.

What do you think should be the correct approach to this issue?.

I would understand if you don't care about the issue. Please answer in this page. Any way, thanks. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I was just reading the thread at the village pump and read your quote "there are people claiming that years and months and weeks and days of talking about it, weeks of watchlist/recent changes notices and a banner on literally every logged-in page in article space constitutes not informing people" and had to agree. This quote need to be etched in stone and placed at the front door of Wikipedia. If I were wealthy, I'd certainly give you a prize for quote of the year. Did I mention I liked that quote? All the best. 64.40.54.163 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to bother you friendly admin, but a few years back you edited the Fields of the Nephilim page, and I was looking for help with a problem. Seems an IP is eager to revert, revert, revert, but hasn't yet realized there's a talk page or an edit description line (Talk:Fields_of_the_Nephilim#Edits_reverts). It's getting to the point of vandalism, and while I'd rather end the edit war before it gets worse, I'm not really sure how to handle it from here :( TheFlowerpotMen (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I couldn't understand why you've reverted my edit on Bizarre Love Triangle. Template:Infobox song clearly states that only Template:Infobox single should be used for songs that have been released as a single. I'll be glad to hear your rationale. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wrong, sorry - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David Gerard

We just deployed another VisualEditor release; bugs fixed include:

• Firefox 13/14 has been temporarily blacklisted, to avoid the insertion of broken links [[./that look like this]] (50720)
• Changing a reference in a template should no longer produce the bright red "you don't have a references block!" error (bugzilla:50423)
• Notices are now shown if you're editing a protected or semi-protected page (bugzilla:50415)
• The template inspector will no longer invite you to insert parameters that are already being used (50715)
• Same as above, but with aliases (50717)
• Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
• The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
• Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
• Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
• The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
• Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)

Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David Gerard! Another set of patches :). Today we have:

• Required template parameters are now automatically added to new templates (50747)
• Templates with piped links now display correctly when you alter them (50801)
• If your edit token expires, you're now informed of it (50424).

  You still won't be able to save - that's due to be fixed on Monday :).

More on Monday, I suspect. Hope you have a good weekend :). I should also have some news about the IP launch pretty soon. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(if you're seeing this and aren't the newsletter recipient - please do sign up here)

Hi. Did you get an edit conflict in this edit? (And if so, were you editing the entire page or just the section you added a comment to?) Killiondude (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, and just the section - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BlikBook, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David! Thank you for this edit, but I think it's still important, for the sake of our readers, that we strive to sum up what Sutherland said about the "Primary respiratory mechanism" and how the subordinate "five ideas" add up to a whole. I know it would be impossible to impose clarity and consistency where these do not exist, but I don't know whether they do or not. I simply don't have the information necessary to improve it myself, but I feel that most of our readers would look briefly at the article and draw very little from it other than the idea that CST may or may not be "quackery", depending upon which "expert" you listen to. I think our most important improvement to the article would be to clearly outline what CST is, including what ailment(s) it purports to treat, what treatment mechanisms are employed during a treatment session, and how key terms are defined (since terms like "craniosacral" and "primary respiratory mechanism" seem to have counter-intuitive meanings in the CST world). I'm still having some difficulty understanding some of the key concepts of CST, but maybe you're having better luck finding sources to elucidate the topic. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't want to get too far into either synthesis or excessive uncritical quoting. But the article is pretty stubby in a lot of places - David Gerard (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David Gerard; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:

• If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
• If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
• If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
• sub tags are no longer removed ((49873)
• If you type at the end of links, they now extend
• Templates now only take a single click to insert
• Clear annotations clears links (50461)
• The link inspector stays open when you click to another item (50895)
• Typing after multi-byte characters no longer creats pawn icons (51140)
• Resizing thumbnails that have a default size set now works (50645)
• References made by tag:ref now display properly (bugzilla:50978)
• The VE is integrated with the spam blacklist (50826)
• Feedbacl link goes to the right language (bugzilla:47730)

There are a lot more improvements coming, but that's it for Monday and Tuesday. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Fork the wiki in which I used a diff authored by you as an example. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your bug reports. "Wings" are on the backlog, having been categorized as an enhancement. As for the cornetto, I couldn't find a free image quickly. Maybe one day I'll photograph one for commons and then you can look forward to Pony++ 2.0.... Oh, BTW your "painful" posting seems to be truncated. - Pointillist (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeuro-linguistic_programming&diff=564873961&oldid=564856461

Why do you ignore breaches of WP policy from editors you agree with? WykiP (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I answered this on said talk page. tl;dr third parties aren't obliged to any arbitrary action you demand of them, and your idea of what constitutes a "personal attack" has long been idiosyncratic - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is calling someone a "buffoon" and "buffoon laureate" not a personal attack? WykiP (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key point in my answer is the first point. Why on earth are you asking me to do something about this? - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the bigger question is why on earth wouldn't you do something about this... WykiP (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David Gerard. The newest updates:

• Links now don't extend over space/punctuation/workbreaks when you type (bugzilla:51463)
• Users with the "minoredit" preference set get working functionality (bugzilla:51515)
• You can tab to buttons in dialogs, including the save dialog (bugzilla:50047)
• We now show the <newarticletext> (or <newarticletextanon>) message as an edit notice (bugzilla:51459)
• You can scroll dialog panels like in transclusions' templates' parameter listings (bugzilla:51739)
• Templates that only create meta-data and no display content at all (like Template:Use dmy dates) now can't be deleted accidentally or deliberately, but still don't show up (bugzilla:51322)
• FlaggedRevisions integration (bugzilla:49699)
• Edit summary will get the section title pre-added if you launched from a section edit link (bugzilla:50872)

Along with some miscellaneous language support fixes. That's all for today; as always, let us know if you spot more bugs. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

org listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Org. Since you had some involvement with the org redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Widefox; talk 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this discussion? A followup is there. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick tip: Need to wikilink a word in VisualEditor? Select the word and type Control+k or ⌘ Command+k to enter VisualEditor's link tool without taking your hands off the keyboard. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts for more time-saving keyboard shortcuts.

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (Template:Bug), scrolling (Template:Bug) and deleting (Template:Bug) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (Template:Bug). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (Template:Bug). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

• Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
• Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Edit^beta"
• Disabling the animation for section editing.
• Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

• Horizontal alignment of images working correctly on more pages (Template:Bug)
• Categories with ':'s in their names (like Category:Wikipedia:Privacy) now work correctly (Template:Bug)
• Magic JavaScript gadgets and tools like sortable tables will now work once the page is saved (Template:Bug)
• Keyboard shortcut for "clear annotations" - now Control+\ or ⌘ Command+\ (Template:Bug)
• Fixed corruption bugs that led to duplicate categories (Template:Bug) and improper collapsing when multiple new references were added in a row (Template:Bug).
• Improvements to display elements: The save dialog in Monobook is restored to normal size (Template:Bug), pop-up notices on save now look the same in VisualEditor as in wikitext editor (Template:Bug), and the popup about using wikitext has a link to the definition of wikitext that now opens in a new window (Template:Bug)

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review of my recent edits to the New Relic Wiki article. I do try to keep my writing in a neutral POV but looks like I didn't succeed this time. I just took another crack at making it more neutral. Would you mind taking a look at my edits? If they indeed have succeeded in achieving a neutral POV, would you mind removing the advert tag? If it's still not where it should be, I would appreciate any guidance you have. Thanks again for your help on this! JNorman704 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a minor edit ...Plese apolozise --Joijoi89 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=569492925&oldid=569492160[reply]

Hi David, I'm afraid I've just reverted your addition of an external link to the James Boswell article as it's not the same person; the website you've inserted the link to is for James Boswell (1906-1971) but the article is for James Boswell (1740-1795). The one I think you were looking for is James Boswell (artist)? Sorry about that! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thanks :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? Parsoid is a tool that translates between the raw wikitext that Wikipedia articles are stored in, and the HTML/RDFa that VisualEditor uses on your screen. If you see chess pawn (♙) or snowman (☃) icons in an article, it usually means that Parsoid has encountered something confusing in the wikitext markup. Please report these problems to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Both VisualEditor and MediaWiki were upgraded recently. For VisualEditor, this is the long-awaited post-Wikimania update with many bug fixes and enhancements. Work also continues on speed at opening and during use, as well as on the bugs reported here and at other Wikipedias. The full report is at Mediawiki.

References are displaying properly, even when nested (Template:Bug) or in image captions (Template:Bug. Reference lists are now always fully populated with references (bug 50094). Firefox users can insert an existing reference in the first paragraph (Template:Bug). Opera users no longer see corruption of categories when a reference was added (bug 50385).

Stray spaces are being stripped from the start of paragraphs to end one of the common <nowiki> problems (Template:Bug). We also fixed a round-tripping bug that caused desirable whitespace in templates (used to make templates more legible, e.g., by putting each parameter in an infobox on a separate line) to get corrupted (bug 51150).

Wikilink handling was improved. Users are not allowed to create internal links to invalid titles (titles that are actually impossible due to limits on acceptable character combinations in titles, not redlinks) (Template:Bug). You can extend wikilinks, but it won't do so over a wordbreak (like a space) (bugs 49931 and 51463).

A handful of fixes to the user interface were made. The toolbar doesn't float over personal tools after opening a dialog or the inspector (Template:Bug). Toolbars were also re-written to be collapsible/expandable, with room for more icons. Buttons in dialogs can now be activated using the Tab ↹ and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ key commands (bug 50047). This saves time for editors, because you don't need to take your hands off the keyboard to click a button. We fixed a handful of bugs that affected only certain articles or certain browsers, including toolbar buttons in Firefox (bug 51986) and dialog panels that didn't always scroll correctly (bug 51739). Bugs with undo/redo getting confused have been fixed (Template:Bug).

Images, in addition to getting references displaying correctly, also saw improvements with a set-empty |link= parameter no longer corrupted (51963). We corrected thumbnail images' display so that they look don't wrong in some contexts (bug 51995). Inserted images no longer explicitly set their alignment, but instead inherit the default position in compliance with the Manual of Style (bug 51851).

More edit notices, warnings, and metadata like information about Pending Changes on an article now appear as appropriate (bug 49699). When new articles are created, users are now shown the <newarticletext> message (bug 51459). VisualEditor now handles templates that set "meta" items (like a category) and nothing else better (bug 51322). If the database is locked when a user tries to save with VisualEditor, they now get a message telling them as such and an opportunity to try again, rather than a silent failure (bug 51636).

When you save the page, having the default preference set to "mark all my edits as minor by default" no longer overrides the setting in the save dialog (bug 51515). If you open VisualEditor from a section edit link, the section's title will be pre-filled in in the edit summary box when you go to save it (bug 50872). The size of the save dialog box in the Monobook skin has been fixed (bug 50058). Also, wikipage content handlers like sortable tables are re-run automatically after saving (Template:Bug).

A very early version of the mathematics equation editor is now available for testing on mw:Mediawiki. If you would like to help improve the user interface for math editor, please test out the extension at mw:Mediawiki:Sandbox and leave your comments directly at the discussion page for the Math Node User Interface at Mediawiki. You should be able to use your regular username and password should to login to Mediawiki.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a poor use of admin privileges. The initial move was evidently controversial, so it should be requested at WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP mandates immediatism, not the luxury of eventualism. Enforcing BLP is one of the things admin powers are actually for (and one of the few I bother using mine for these days) - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been nice to discuss your concerns before reverting my protection here. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to tread on your toes - I thought you were only meaning to enforce the move protection, but upping the text protection doesn't affect that at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, you shouldn't have moved the page and then protected it. That crosses the WP:INVOLVED boundary and as you've already seen, other reasonable admins would not have taken the same measure so you're not exempted based on those grounds. I won't make a stink, but you shouldn't use your admin tools in the page-name controversy anymore.--v/r - TP 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I applaud your move. So does Slate: Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we didn't beat them. However, I note that the UK news organisations were much more on the ball than the US ones; those aren't hard to beat - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the the Chelsea Manning Talk Page and, wow!, people are all atwitter. It's not the first time this has happened on Wikipedia. People are going a little nuts on the TP and AN/I, I think. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was right, but you protected the wrong version. The name of the article had be Bradley Manning for a long long period of time. Someone makes an obviously controversial change to Chelsae Manning, and you immediately protect it!??!? Poor show. You're responsible for the egg on WP's face over this one. NickCT (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm amazed you could say that and also link it - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strive to amaze. Look, sometimes the wrong version is just obviously the wrong version. The move to Chelsae was obviously controversial, right? It hadn't really been discussed on the talk page, right? So you protected a controversial, undiscussed move, right? Where is my logic wrong here? How was this not the wrong version? NickCT (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought - I want to point out that I appreciate wielding adminly powers can be difficult, and I'm not here to deride. But this does strike me as a pretty obvious mistake. NickCT (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, long-established rulings and practice on treatment of transgender living subjects, see talk page for excruciatingly detailed argumentation - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware WP:BLP tells you to immediately protect against serious violations to WP:BLP. I grant that MOS:IDENTITY is pretty explicit about the naming thing. WP:BLP does not tell you that you must immediately protect against violations of MOS:IDENTITY. Or does it? Can you point to the passage?

Listen, I don't mean to be a litigious arse over this, but you've gone out on a limb on this one.

Frankly this has me thinking about Wikipedia:RFC/U. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having read a little deeper into this, I'd like to revise my earlier comment. MOS:IDENTITY has " long-established rulings and practice on treatment of transgender"ed people in relation to the pronouns that get used in transgender articles. Not the article's title.

I see no section in WP:BLP which specifically addresses transgendered issues.... NickCT (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, David has been repeatedly asked about how keeping the article at Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. He has yet to explain. And, yet, he felt perfectly content reverting a standard WP:RMT reversion of a controversial move, protected as so by him, on that basis. Not happy at all. And, unfortunately, if the article stays at Chelsea Manning (likely for reasons other than WP:BLP), he's going to walk away thinking what he did was correct. Unacceptable. Even the editor that started the move request, who actually prefers the article be at Chelsea Manning, understood the controversial nature of the move necessitated it to stay at Bradley Manning while the matter is discussed. It's absolutely remarkable that someone would perform two admin actions on an article with so much controversy, and give virtually no explanation for said actions after being repeatedly asked to. -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point has been discussed in exhausting detail on the talk page. Bearcat explained it to you directly in small words, for instance. (I notice you even tried something WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in your response.) Your comment above smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no one has pointed out what in the BLP policy the original name would have violated. And you, the admin who performed the controversial action, most certainly have not; all you did was curtly cite BLP repeatedly, without any explanation... and you're doing the same again. Admins are supposed to explain controversial actions. And don't throw OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me; even that essay states:

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Here the existence of other articles at titles different from the subjects' preferred names, either temporarily during a move request or long-term by consensus, suggests your interpretation of BLP is out of touch with the rest of the community's.

And Bearcat did not explain the BLP issue at all. I asked him to quote a portion of the BLP policy he was referring to, and he didn't do that. And when someone pointed out that Debra Lafave was not at her current, preferred, legal name (Debra Jean Beasley), Bearcat did not move the page accordingly. If, as he and you apparently believe, leaving an article at a name someone doesn't prefer is a BLP violation, Bearcat (or you or someone else) would have just done the move, as BLP requires immediate action. Instead, Bearcat said he would support a move request (a consensus-building process) or otherwise not get involved. That shows he doesn't actually believe leaving an article at someone's non-preferred name is a violation. -- tariqabjotu 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commend all to Sue Gardner's comments on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Sue did not ever, once, cite BLP. You are entitled to feel that Chelsea Manning is the better title for the article. However, you are not entitled to use your support of a particular name and position when performing admin actions, which appears to be -- given your inability to articulate the applicability of BLP -- what happened here. I initially defended you, thinking you would get around to explaining why you felt BLP applied. But, no more; your arrogant attitude toward those who dare ask for an explanation is unbecoming, and you are lucky this debacle is as distracting and exhausting as it is. -- tariqabjotu 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't think those notifications are just incidental, casual references to you, I should point out there's a thread largely about you at ANI. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That diff

Hi, I asked a question of you here. I'd be grateful if you could post a diff and put end to the matter. Thanks, --RA (✍) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't raise that precise fractal detail before (I wouldn't normally expect a BLP action to generally expect a 101-level textbook on transgender issues and how not to be a dick in the edit box), but it was certainly a component of the rationale - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should point out that "how not to be a dick" is perhaps a poor choice of words in a discussion of transgender issues. EEng (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I replied again. --RA (✍) 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those wanting a novel-length explanation

We've written one. Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale. @Rannpháirtí anaithnid: @Tariqabjotu: Comment section under it - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thread at AN

I've opened an informal discussion relating to concerns with your conduct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_parties.3F

Regards, --RA (✍) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Dillon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Dillon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Factory Records recording artists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David,

I looks like you pasted information into the thread with diff that you may not have intended. I've removed removed it through an edit. You may want to redact it.

--RA (✍) 12:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ooh shite, thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

argh. David, everyone who will likely be commenting has seen your rationale, and anyone who wants to read it only needs to click. It makes the header section too long and daunting, and may discourage people from joining the discussion which is now way below. Please reconsider hiding that section, providing a link is usually sufficient, or a copy/paste hatted, but having it live there in full glory is a bit extreme.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I won't accept the (still completely unsubstantiated) accusations being left visible while my (cited) reply to them is hidden from view - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well let's agree to disagree :) I won't revert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David:

Thanks for the fixes on IBM Lotus Symphony. I noticed the errors (e.g. "sponsored to") and staleness but didn't have the time at the time to research the matter.

Your work is much appreciated, Madman (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :-) Could still do with a cleanup - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever try substituting Lillet Blanc for the dry vermouth? Now that's a fine drink. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Could you please explain your recent revert at WP:MOS? The editor whose edit you reinstated said: "I am completely wrong and have made a mistake, I thought the revision was broader than it was. Is it safe for me to re-revert my change, or would that cause trouble?"[6]. GabrielF (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have rereverted self - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you intended to alter the guideline, but you removed the passage during debate. Fortunately, I recovered the passage. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely didn't mean to do that - thank you - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, let be be perfectly honest and I mean this in the least threatening tone possible, but I am considering filing an Arbcom case over the move and specifically your use of admin tools (and also the behaviors of others). The community has been unable to solve this on administrative noticeboards so I wanted to reach out to you and see if this can be solved here before we have to go through the nightmare ahead. In retrospect and given the close of the move discussion, do you see how the issue, although very well intentioned, was actually controversial? If so, do you still think your actions were correct or would a move discussion have been better? Do you think a move discussion would've resulted in the name being changed to Chelsea sooner rather than in 30 days? I saw the comment you just posted on the talk page about how her being a convicted criminal doesn't change how we should treat her self identification. I found your words to be reasonable and level headed and that inspired me to try to talk to you about this. Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's controversial - it was an incredibly high-profile BLP, and that's the sort of situation we require WP:BLP to exist for - particularly the provisions about not punting it to discussion to avoid the issue. And any action - either way - will be considered outrageous and unacceptable. There was no good decision, but we each considered, with all due thought, that leaving where it was would have been actually obviously the wrong thing per BLP, as we outlined - and the arbcom has repeatedly found that WP:BLP overrides merely avoiding controversy, and that the latter is the wrong thing when the two are opposed. Of course, the arbcom does not operate on precedent, so what they decide on any given real-life example is something it would be exceedingly foolish to predict.

It's frustrating because I did explain the move, but apparently I was expected to do so with something that would convince people who didn't think transgender was even a thing. So my actions were repeatedly lied about (and the lying is still going on - I don't answer every accusation because it's effectively a textual denial of service, like answering a Gish gallop in real time), Morwen's actions were repeatedly lied about, I was badgered to explain stuff I'd explained repeatedly. Finally we wrote a book-length wall of text, and people were outraged that we had suggested they might be ignorant of trans issues, even as they continued to make appallingly transphobic statements in all innocence.

How do you suggest I would have explained it convincingly to people who seriously propose hormone levels were a determining factor, or who repeatedly compared transgender people to dogs? To people who wanted to see evidence of surgery before believing this was even an issue? What would work to convince them the action was justified, without controversy? Please, give me what you're looking for here.

(And if there was nothing that would quell controversy - does that mean you consider that potential for controversy should outrank BLP? I don't believe it does, and that the letter and spirit of BLP are that it does not.)

I have no idea how a move discussion would have gone; given the comments, I have no reason to think the distribution of !votes would have been much different. I think the eventual decision was badly, horribly wrong, but the admins running it proceeded in good faith in a very difficult situation, so I'm not going to give them grief for it.

I think we did the right thing at the time, in all good faith, but there is absolutely no way on earth it wasn't going to create outrage, no matter what and no matter where it was.

I'm not sure what else to offer you. If you want to press the nuke button, I can't stop you. But "lots of people were upset" does not mean "BLP actions were wrong", and if Morwen or I are sanctioned over this issue then WP:BLP is effectively dead, because no-one will dare touch a controversial BLP issue for fear of their admin bit. But then, the arbcom can in fact kill BLP just like that - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		As an editor, I don't think we're able to find middle ground here. As a person, I think you've probably had a rough week and you need this beer. I still disagree, but I'm empathetic to the stress this whole this has been. v/r - TP 15:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I haven't named you, so I expect that Hahc21 or someone else will bring whatever evidence against you that they choose to.--v/r - TP 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the decision was clearly wrong in regard to policy and disastrous in regard to the overall treatment of transgendered individuals. What do you think in regard to the way forward (eg. a possible move review or a new discussion at some point)? At the time of the recent move the media already predominantly used Chelsea[7], but I'm concerned about a precedent that would make such moves of transgendered people's articles dependent on the amount of press coverage, a situation apparently only applying to transgendered people. I also find it unlikely that all those editors coming to oppose using her current name will not be there eg. in 30 days. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what will happen, but now a case has been brought the arbcom has been asked, so we'll see what happens. Press coverage is going to accelerate, with no assistance from Wikipedians. I'm seeing the Urbanarchives post linked widely. The usual Wikipedia reaction to the world going "seriously, wtf?" is to double down on the bad decision ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For going above and beyond what most administrators would have done, and being willing to go against the majority in the interest of protecting our BLP subjects, please accept this Barnstar. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what brand of Ale you enjoy because that ain't no Martini mate. Thanks for the reply to my comment. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Cheers!!![reply]

That was in fact a pint of proper beer in the picture ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What brand may I inquire? If you get the chance try some Knob Creek Bourbon on the rocks and sip on it. Hmmm!208.54.40.134 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't remember! It was whatever is actually drinkable and sold at the rather desolate bar in Heathrow Terminal 5. My favourite pub is the Pembury Tavern (favoured by a few London Wikimedians, it seems), which is run by a serious beer nerd - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an interesting pub. I have not been to London in years. I would enjoy going to the Imperial War Museum Again. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can search for images directly in VisualEditor. Click the media icon, which looks like this:

Then type a few keywords into the search box. VisualEditor will search Commons for images or other files whose titles or descriptions contain those words, and will display thumbnail pictures of them for your review. Click one time on the image you want to insert in the article.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

This Thursday's VisualEditor update was mostly about stability and performance improvements, and some preparatory work for major planned improvements, along with bug fixes for non-English language support and right-to-left text. Everything that the English Wikipedia received today has been running on Mediawiki for a week already.

Officially, the problem with the link inspector not linking to a specific section on a page (bug 53219) was fixed in this release, although that critical patch actually appeared here earlier.

A number of bugs related to copy-and-paste functionality were fixed (48604, bug 50043, bug 53362, bug 51538, among others). Full rich copy-and-paste from external sources into VisualEditor is expected "soon".

In other fixes, you can no longer add empty ref tags (<ref/>) (bug 53345). Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text. This was fixed in bug 50127. There was another problem related to using arrow keys to move the cursor next to an inline image that was fixed (bug 53507).

Looking ahead: The next planned upgrade is scheduled for next Thursday, and you should expect to find a redesigned toolbar with drop-down menus that include room for references, templates, underline, strikethrough, superscript, subscript, and code formatting. There will also be keyboard shortcuts for setting the format (paragraph vs section headings).

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being determined at this time. Generally speaking, languages that depend on the input method editor are not going to receive VisualEditor this month. The current target date is Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the dirtywork on this. I'm surprised that you didn't know about this insane hypersensitivity to updating links to avoid redirects. While it's probably true that it's not worth doing that in most cases (not worth editors' time, not worth cluttering up edit histories) to do this in most cases, it is certainly true that, once an editor has (wisely or unwisely) changed a link to avoid the redirect, it's utterly stupid to invest more time changing it back. But some people are happy to follow rules right off the edge of a cliff. Thanks again. EEng (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. BTW, how do you like the article? I'm afraid (as you'll see on its Talk) that I had to go through some grief for it.[reply]

I haven't boggled at pedantic weirdness in the MOS since 2005 ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be like you. What's your secret? EEng (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here's something a very wise man once said [8] which I think you may enjoy:

In the last 48 hr I've become aware of a simmering dispute over whether MOS itself should be in American or British English. With any luck the participants will put that discussion (let's call it Discussion D1) on hold while they engage in Discussion D2: consideration of the variety of English in which D1 should be conducted. Then, if there really is a God in Heaven, D1 and D2 will be the kernel around which will form an infinite regress of metadiscussions D3, D4, and so on -- a superdense accrection of pure abstraction eventually collapsing on itself to form a black hole of impenetrable disputation, wholly aloof from the mundane cares of practical application and from which no logic or reason can emerge.

That some editors will find themselves drawn into this abyss, mesmerized on their unending trip to nowhere by a kaleidoscope of linguistic scintillation reminiscent of the closing shots of 2001, is of course to be regretted. But they will know in their hearts that their sacrifice is for greater good of Wikipedia. That won't be true, of course, but it would be cruel to disabuse them of that comforting fiction as we send them on their way.

EEng (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:

The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David,

I'm preparing evidence for the Manning case and I want to be as little of a dickhead as possible. I want to demonstrate that you and Morwen are friends offline. I can do this within the bounds of admissible evidence; but it involves linking to things that would reveal emails and I don't want to do that.

So, for the sake of everybody's benefit, could you acknowledge here that (1) you and Morwen know each other offline and (2) you're friends.

That business aside, I think it would be worthwhile seeking that there be no sanctions in this case. I think NE Ent has a point when he/she opposes any more "wiki-blood-letting". I think a findings of fact are more important. As is a reconciliation between the (essentially) good faith editors involved. I'm of a mind to formally propose that to ArbCom. Would you support it?

I don't count editors who made explicit breaches of civility among that (mens rea, as you've been describing them elsewhere).

Best, --RA (✍) 09:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we know each other in person, this isn't a secret - feel free to use this diff to substantiate that. (We did act independently at the time on the Manning article.) But it's important to note that I've been editing since 2004, and I know quite a lot of Wikipedia admins in person to about the same degree. Furthermore, knowing quite a lot of Wikipedia admins in person, to about the same degree as Morwen and I know each other, will be quite common amongst long-term editors. So if you're attempting to insinuate that knowing each other beforehand automatically makes actions suspicious, please keep in mind that that's really, really not good Bayesian evidence when you're considering people who've been active in the Wikimedia movement for nearly ten years - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: To expand on that: if you're involved in Wikipedia longer than the typical editor interest cycle of about 1-2 years (median 18 months), then you will, in due course, get drawn into Wikimedia movement stuff, and get to know lots of other people who've been involved that length of time, and particularly face-to-face if you're in a large city like London in a small country like the UK. I really don't think expecting people not to know each other is reasonable, or that knowing each other is prima facie evidence of suspect behaviour or tag-teaming. Any of these people would and do happily tell each other when they're utterly full of it.

It's not universal (you've been around as long and I don't recall even encountering you before this) but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that editors knowing each other be regarded with suspicion.

The main effect on interactions of knowing each other is that you actually remember the other person is a human; I submit that this is not a bad thing for Wikipedia editors to remember.

I have no interest in a bloodbath (despite the expected attempts at mudslinging that are already in progress) - my interest is getting Wikipedia to behave better. As well as the media coverage berating Wikipedia for moving the article back to the subject's old name, we have academic writeups of the case in progress - probably WP:RS quality. It may be just the people I know, but the universal reaction amongst people I know, online and offline, who've looked at the move discussion has been abject horror, and several swearing never to edit Wikipedia and be somewhat put off even reading it. It would be nice if we could do rather better than that - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for your openness.

I'm not out for a witch hunt. Don't worry. And I think the points you raise above a correct and pertinent.

Before I reply to them, I'd just like to enquire. Would you and Morwen be, say, drinking buddies? Would you meet socially outside of formal WM events, meet-ups, etc.? I just want to get a picture. --RA (✍) 11:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a couple of Sundays ago, we both went down the pub (the Pembury Tavern, though we didn't see anyone buy a pint with Bitcoins) and met up with Psychonaut, who was over from Germany. Morwen was in some need of a pint, having been quite shaken by the stalker attempting to harass her (the same one spoken of in this New Statesman article) for the apparent crime of having dared move the article. (A real-life example of why transgender name issues are actually serious business.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And it wouldn't be unusual for yourself and Morwen to meet up in that kind of way? --RA (✍) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. Not that I get out much these days. What is your planned point? - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's what I'm getting at. You are absolutely right above where you write:

The main effect on interactions of knowing each other is that you actually remember the other person is a human; I submit that this is not a bad thing for Wikipedia editors to remember.

But there's a flip side also: you risk being involved in your interactions with them on wiki and your judgement being compromised because of it. That's only human.

There were plenty of other administrators out there who could have locked the page, if that was necessary. You should have gone to them instead. As it was, there was no pressing need to lock the page against moves (it was at the "correct title" and wasn't being warred over). So it looks like you locked the article at your friend's (and your) preferred title for no other immediate need.

It doesn't matter if that was even the case. The perception of involvement in a controversial decision - and twice undoing other administrators' actions afterwards - should have been enough for you to go to a noticeboard and leave it to someone else (who was uninvolved) to do the button pressing.

Anyway, look, that the substance of the evidence I'm going to give; but I'm not going to look for any sanction. I don't think there's any benefit from it. I don't doubt the good intentions of all involved. So long as lessons are learnt, I'll be happy. --RA (✍) 12:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a Monday, not a Sunday, and it wasn't just the three of us; there were at least three other Wikipedians there (though one or two of them may have shown up after David's departure) plus assorted acquaintances and SOs who may or may not have accounts here. In my observation David's attendance at such gatherings is not "unusual", but pretty rare, and in any case never involves collaborative editing or backroom dealings. In fact it's such a large, heterogeneous, and inconstant group that any given pair of attendees don't necessarily know or like each other—much like a certain place on the Internet I know. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that occasional attendance at a Wikipedian-dominated pub meetup makes one any more involved than their usual online editing does. This is especially true for David, given his well-deserved reputation for frank criticism directed at anyone and everyone he thinks deserves it, regardless of what his prior relationship with them might be. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a BLP I think quick action is actually a more important consideration, but do appreciate that people who don't like a decision will (and did) look for anything. I also note you previously claimed that merely having familiarity with transgender issues would constitute a WP:INVOLVED violation, which I think is stretching it a bit far - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, apart from that Monday (which was prompted by User:Psychonaut's visit), I don't think that me and David have been in the same room this year. Morwen (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once otherwise this year, I think. But I really don't get out much and probably haven't seen Morwen in person anywhere in the last coupla years apart from said pub (which is a slightly famous geek hangout in general, being run by a computer scientist who went into selling beer, so open sources his stuff) - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chad Johnson (cornerback) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE, never played 1 NFL game, lack of sourcing for GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't know if you got my email response. I need confirmation of consent for the five items before I can post them to the evidence page. Thanks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope it isn't inappropriate to contact you in this way. I see that you are (and have been) somewhat active on the NLP talk page, and that you are an admin here at Wikipedia. I'm having difficulty progressing in a discussion on said talk page, due to repeated and disruptive personal attacks (from User:AnotherPseudonym), which myself and another user (User:Snowded) have unsuccessfully attempted to stop. I am unsure of what to do and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't conjoin me to that complaint please. I think AnotherPseudonym should calm down a bit, but he is right on the content issue concerned. Also you as a new editor are showing a pattern that is very familiar to those with experience of the page. There are have been far too many meat and sock puppets and your initial argument was unclear and aggressive in nature so you should not be surprised at a strong reaction ----Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't conjoin me to that complaint please." My mistake. I clearly misunderstood your position. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to OpenOffice.org may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to OpenOffice.org may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those following my talk page: I've just nominated OpenOffice.org for GA. Uninvolved reviewers are needed. Thanks :-)

(and I realise GA generally has a shortage of reviewers, and will do some myself) - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Gerard. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1677 words and 99 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can edit a page's categories in VisualEditor. Click the "Page settings" button (next to Cancel/Save) in the toolbar to open the category tool. It will show you a list of the current categories for that page.

To add a category, type the name of the category you want to add in the search field. To remove an existing category, click on the category in the list and then, in the dialog that opens, click on the "Remove" icon (trash can). "Options" will allow you to set a default sorting key.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

VisualEditor has been updated twice in the last two weeks. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week.

As announced, the toolbar was redesigned to be simpler, shorter, and to have the ability to have drop-down groups with descriptions. What you see now is the initial configuration and is expected to change in response to feedback from the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. The controls to add <u> (underline), <sub> (subscript), and <sup> (superscript), <s> (strikethrough) and <code> (computer code/monospace font) annotations to text are available to all users in the drop-down menu. At the moment, all but the most basic tools have been moved into a single drop-down menu, including the tools for inserting media, references, reference lists, and templates. The current location of all of the items in the toolbar is temporary, and your opinions about the best order are needed! Please offer suggestions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Toolbar.

In an eagerly anticipated upgrade to the reference dialog, newly added references or reference groups no longer need the page to be saved before they can be re-used (bugs 51689 and 52000). The 'Use existing reference' button is now disabled on pages which don't yet have any references (bug 51848). The template parameter filter in the transclusion dialog now searches both parameter name and label (bug 51670).

In response to several requests, there are some new keyboard shortcuts. You can now set the block/paragraph formatting from the keyboard: Ctrl+0 sets a block as a regular paragraph; Ctrl+1 up to Ctrl+6 sets it as a Heading 1 ("Page title") to Heading 6 ("Sub-heading 4"); Ctrl+7 sets it as pre-formatted (bug 33512). Ctrl+2, which creates level 2 section headings, may be the most useful.

Some improvements were made to capitalization for links, so typing in "iPhone" will offer a link to "iPhone" as well as "IPhone" (bug 50452).

Copying and pasting within the same document should work better as of today's update, as should copying from VisualEditor into a third-party application (bug 53364, bug 52271, bug 52460). Work on copying and pasting between VisualEditor instances (for example, between two articles) and retaining formatting when copying from an external source into VisualEditor is progressing.

Major improvements to editing with input method editors (IMEs; mostly used for Indic and East Asian languages) are being deployed today. This is a complex change, so it may produce unexpected errors. On a related point, the names of languages listed in the "languages" (langlinks) panel in the Page settings dialog now display as RTL when appropriate (bug 53503).

Looking ahead: The help/'beta' menu will soon expose the build number next to the "Leave feedback" link, so users can give more specific reports about issues they encounter (bug 53050). This change will make it easier for developers to identify any cacheing issues, once it starts reporting the build number (currently, it says "Version false"). Also, inserting a link, reference or media file will put the cursor after the new content again (bug 53560). Next week’s update will likely improve how dropdowns and other selection menus behave when they do not fit on the screen, with things scrolling so the selected item is always in view.

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being finalized. About two dozen Wikipedias are on the list for Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only, and on Monday, September 30 for unregistered editors. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingsoft Office, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. Just wanted to let you know that a new finding of fact concerning you has been proposed in the Manning arbitration proposed decision. Newyorkbrad asked that an uninvolved user notify you of this, so I'm doing so. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message to inform you that an finding has been proposed in regards to you in the Manning naming dispute arbitration case. You may find it useful to review the guide to arbitration. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Anomalist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anomalist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David

I saw your hatnote/dab restoration in OpenOffice.org and after a couple of minutes I understood the point of your revert. However, there are also WP:INTDAB (especially WP:HOWTODAB) and Wikipedia:HATNOTE § Examples of improper use to consider. So, I slightly changed your edit to ensure that (1) "(disambiguation)" is seen in the link, (2) the purpose of Apache OpenOffice link is clear without being improperly attributed to having something to do with OOo and (3) the page is not flagged as needing attention.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Pretty good, thank you :-) Though I expect trouble over the second one, as AOO's status (unbroken continuation, or new project?) is an active point of contention on the talk page. "Not to be confused with" appears to actively state a POV, therefore isn't really suitable - with that edit, you've given the appearance of endorsing one side.

The more general problem is that (a) sometimes it's a bit more complicated than the MOS has yet dictated (b) attempting to pin everything down in the MOS ahead of time can occasionally give results that don't serve the reader, at which point WP:IAR needs consideration - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Although that would not exactly be my assessment of the situation, we can replace {{Distinguish|Apache OpenOffice}} with {{for|similary-named Apache project|Apache OpenOffice}}. What do you think? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking :-) More likely to survive - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I've added some comments to the current discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. There's also a (possibly interesting) current discussion on my talk page, but bear in mind that I express only my own opinions on that page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and do a decent review at FAC at some point; I'd say that technically having a merge tag makes the article unstable, but it seems like something that can be reasonably be addressed one way or another. Might be a good idea to solicit comments from relevant wikiprojects to try and get some sort of ad hoc consensus on the matter? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought the article was basically complete, but the peer review helped a lot, so obviously there's going to be stuff I missed - I'll do some more active asking around - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned to Tóraí my wish for further discussion on all aspects of OpenOffice.org and related matters - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, perhaps you would like to join us for our online planning meeting for WikiProject Open on Thursday evening (9:00pm in the UK) and talk a little about your work on the OpenOffice.org article? These meetings draw in both newbies and experienced Wikipedians -- I think hearing about a current FA nomination in the "open" space would be of great interest! See here for details: WP:OPEN planning -Pete (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for your review. Indeed, the section "other references" is long. I can divide it : Geology... Best wishes. Gtaf (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :-) I'll go over and copyedit the text at some point, as I said I would (i.e., not this evening) - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ps : I changed my user name as you have probably seen. Gtaf (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. Is there anything else I can do for this article ? Thanks Gtaf (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have of course enabled it already and am editing with it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David Gerard. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at m:IRC office hours#Office hour logs.

The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.

The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.

For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I saw your comments at FAC talk. Although there are some general points there, I think your current nom has a particular problem. When I had a look to see whether to review, the page had a merge template on it. I don't think an article can be considered stable unless that is resolved, and editors will think twice about reviewing articles that may disappear. I once had a request to change an article's title during FAC, but that's a different issue which doesn't affect the content. I'm still willing to review when you can let me know the issue has been resolved (I'm no expert on software though). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was put on a week ago; the person who put it on hasn't been back to discuss, despite me pinging him on his talk page, so I assume my response on Talk:OpenOffice.org about the extensive prior discussion about separate articles was sufficient, so I've removed the tag - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm JD3rulo. The thing is that I'm a huge fan of Jessie J, I have made changes in her page, but other users have removed them, replying that the links I referred to don't belong to reliable sources. So I'm wondering if you could dedicate part of your time in helping me to fill some topics that are abandoned, such as Jessie J's vocal type, range and also writing updated news about her career lately. I hope you can help me, cause it seems Jessie's page has been forgotten. If you need some help to write about any article or making research, you can count on me, so this is the only thing I can give you: my friendship to make wikipedia a better and updated site. Chao, have a nice day!JD3rulo (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, the remedy found against you is terrible, inappropriate, and, as such, I have appealed it here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]