User talk:Danny/Archive 6

Mike Southall

Why have you deleted this article? He is not non-notable in the context of a) Scouting and b) the Isle of Man. He is also a Member of the British Empire so I would say that alone makes somebody at least worthy of a wiki article. There are so many bits of rubbish out there on this - why delete an article people have spent time writting which is not vanity or vandalism. I think it's absolutely ridiculous - no consultation or anything - just your own personal view.

Meetup

Hi Danny. Just wanted to let you know that if you're still interested in doing a meetup in the DC area, I'm available to help out. As far as I know, I'm the only really active Wikipedian in or immediately around D.C. Isomorphic 08:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in response. I don't know too much about lodgings around D.C. since I've never had any reason to use them myself, but I can tell you that there are several hotels and motels along U.S. Route 1 near University of Maryland, in College Park. Given their location, they'll probably be more reasonably priced than anything you'd get downtown. They're a short bus ride or a medium-long walk from the College Park metro station, which in turn gets you downtown in around 25 minutes. Isomorphic 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wergeland

Hi, I noticed you created the page Wergeland and made it a redirect to Wergeland Township, Minnesota. As there's also a Norwegian poet named Wergeland (Henrik Wergeland, who's quite famous in Norway, and usually referred to just as 'Wergeland' - and, given that the township is Minnesota, I wouldn't be surprised if it is named after him:) - would you mind if I made Wergeland into a disambig? Relatively new here, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes:) Best wishes, Tobyox 11:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wergeland

Hi, I noticed you created the page Wergeland and made it a redirect to Wergeland Township, Minnesota. As there's also a Norwegian poet named Wergeland (Henrik Wergeland, who's quite famous in Norway, and usually referred to just as 'Wergeland' - and, given that the township is Minnesota, I wouldn't be surprised if it is named after him:) - would you mind if I made Wergeland into a disambig? Relatively new here, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes:) Best wishes, Tobyox 11:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Britannica Pages

Hi, thanks for your help on the Britannica pages. The idea, however, is not to link them, but to create redirects, so that if people use that term it will automatically redirect. This is done by typing #REDIRECT [[Name of article]]. Thanks. Danny 02:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know how to make redirects, and I made them for the articles where I thought they made sense. I don't think it makes much sense to make redirect e.g. for The Royal Air Force or The Royal Navy, so I just linked them without the "The". - Marcika 02:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've been doing that for all the redirects for a very long time. The redirects serve as a precautionary measure, in case people put in the wrong words in links. Danny 02:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining me the purpose of the redirects. However, I think it is highly unlikely that anybody would enter "The Old Pretender James Edward" into the Wikipedia search box instead of "James Edward" or that anybody would wikilink that term in an article. I thought the sense of the Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics page was to make sure the articles exist and can be found in Wikipedia, not to create gratuitous redirects. - Marcika 02:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marcika, there's a version of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:2004_Encyclopedia_topics#Redirects_and_capitalization; I added another paragraph to address this discussion (I think). David Brooks 16:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EB2004/26

Thanks. An hour ago I knew nothing about Myanmar. Now I know one thing. I suppose two won't hurt :-)

I was a little nervous about working from the top of the list. I imagine half a dozen people all clicking on the top red link and simultaneously researching a stub, so I clicked on the second... David Brooks 18:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia, again

We've received another complaint, ironically from a user who found us through Mike Garcia's own complaint. I investigated the page in question and noticed it had been protected following a blatant violation on his part of the 3RR. The user in question, an anon, explained himself on the talk page, and repeatedly did so in edit summaries, before User:Tony Sidaway protected the page. I've noted to Mike, and now you, that unless an explanation is forthcoming on this issue in the next day, on behalf of all three users I'm seeking an injunction. Wally 01:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This instance of recidivism is already very troubling, and I don't see it as likely to improve as this regression has been so rapid. However, in deference to the amount of time you've spent on the issue and your seniority in Wikipedia, I will hold off as long as the issue is settled to the satisfaction of the complaining users. I will also see, if you'd like, if AMA representation is to be had for Mike Garcia.

That said, bullying anons and new users is abominable. I hope you can correct this behavior. Wally 01:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good evening Danny. I just replied my to at my last message. Feel free to answer me back. -- Mike Garcia | talk 03:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you contacted the user in question? What is the deal with all this? Wally 22:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EB2004

Danny, I'm a bit confused about this project. I just had a look at the history of the last page, which is marked as done, and there's still quite a lot of red links there. I thought the links were meant to be blue before they were removed?

Also, is there any chance you'd be able to archive your talk page? The size of it is a bit nasty for those of us who have to pay by the megabyte for our bandwidth. Ambi 03:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some of them from /29 got moved into /28 but rest assured no red topics were deleted. Pcb21| Pete 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the deleted page 29, and it looks as if there's still a lot of red links there, which has me a tad confused. Oh well. Ambi 14:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at the bottom of page 28, I am sure you will see there the same red links that are on the deleted page 29 - Zwischengoldglaser is in this category for example. Don't worry we are taking this task quite seriously, massive thought it is! Pcb21| Pete 14:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's undelete 29 (to preserve the history) and add an explanatory note. I suggested this to Pete. David Brooks 17:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow Danny you are quick - I had barely submitted The Minch, came back to /26 to remove it from the list and it had already gone! :) You are doing such a good job with those lists I am going to forget about merging and just stick with what works for you because it works for me too. Pcb21| Pete 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had the same experience with Tenor Drum (a re-capitalize redirect but I had to add the EB meaning to Tenor drum first). Danny, do you have an alarm rigged for every link that blue-ifies? David Brooks 17:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is it in my user page?

Why does [my sandbox|User:flarn2005/sandbox] need to be moved to my user page? I thought anyone was allowed to make their own article, sandboxes included! The sandboxes that were originally on Wikipedia didn't need to be on user pages, so why should mine? Since I do not believe it should be on my user page, I will move it back to where it previously was. If you really want to move it to my user page again, please send me a message explaining why.

Thank you!

P.S. If it is in my user page, I cannot get to it by simply typing "Sandbox 2" in the search box! I do not like that; I want it to be like the original sandboxes.

Umm Kulthum

Thanks for the compliment - and for the original redirect. With so many English renderings of the name it's nearly impossible to know what to search for! --Gene_poole 00:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike

I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation on Bleed Like Me. Short form - edit war, page was protected, page was unprotected, Mike resumed edit war, has yet to explain self. Tony Sidaway is trying to make sense out of it, Wally is calling for blood, the usual. Thought you might want to get involved. :) Snowspinner 15:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I unprotected Bleed Like Me at the request of an editor who pointed out that the CD had been released, the music rags are reviewing it, people have listened to the tracks and read the liner notes, and now they want to expand the article. Mike has changed the release information back and someone else has contacted me after editing back to the version agreed on the talk page, but not wanting to get into another war over this. Would you be able to persuade Mike to let it rest? There is strong agreement on the content and that Mike's version, while not strictly wrong, is less complete. Nobody agrees that Mike's version is better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia is still reverting other users, violating the 3RR and being rude and uncivil. Are you handling him or not? Quite frankly, I find little reason of late that he could ever be considered a productive user. The patience of the community quickly draws to a close. Wally 21:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dude, "Redirect" has a "D" in it!

Just FYI. I fixed one.........A2Kafir 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Dillards

Not much -- I'm aware of them as a noted bluegrass band that was on the Andy Griffith Show. I'm quite surprised Wikipedia hasn't had a bluegrass fanatic join yet. It's quite a gaping hole in our music coverage. I've put a stub in anyway. Tuf-Kat 02:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Limón

Hi. As I couldn't see the need to have the Limón article at the longer title of "Limón, Costa Rica", I moved it back. More details, and if you wish to discuss, at Talk:Limón. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12?

Hallo,
quite a time ago, you stated that Seneca died on this day 65 by listing him here. As I'm unable to find anything on the net confirming this very day, (to the contrary some sites indicate that the Pisonian conspiracy wasn't revealed until April 18), I'd like to ask you remember where you got it from ... regards Interpretix TALK 14:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... no reaction? Well, I did remove the entry, then ... Interpretix TALK 10:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

D.K.

Here you go: Dorothy Kirsten. -- Viajero 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your page on the Hebrew Wikipedia

"בויקיפדיה העברית אתה עדיין בסטטוס של "עזב Avihu 17:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edmeston

Your wrote:

Hello. Are you responsible for all of the material that has been posted here about Edmeston? If so, i think it is fascinating, but I am not sure that this is the right place for it. On the other hand, it would be a great addition to Wikisource (www.wikisource.org) or Wikibooks (www.wikibooks.org). Would you consider moving it there? Please let me know. Danny 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nonenmac"

I am responsible for most of that stuff and would consider moving it. I questioned from the start whether Wikipedia was an appropriate place for the information, but I thought that it should be available to the community, and I found that Wikipedia was a very easy way to do it, especially in the abilitly to easily link to articles about related historical figures and occurances within Wikipedia. I justified it puting it there by comparing it to the number of articles on individual video game characters and other such microscopic details of pop culture.

My concern with moving the Edmeston articles to either Wikibooks or Wikisource is that the articles contain a large number of links to other Wikipedia articles. I assume that they would all need to change to external links back to Wikipedia, which would be a little tedious to do. The Wikibooks and Wikisource articles that I've looked at have very few internal or external links (other than tables of contents and such) -- I'm not sure why. I would also have a lot of pictures to either move or link back to.

Any ideas which domain would be more appropriate?

YES, YES, please restore the Edmeston, New York (Chronology) article and all the sub-articles. We spent months on that -- probably should have kept a local copy. Please give us a couple days or so. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thank you very much! Nonenmac 01:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The move to Wikisource is complete. You can go ahead and delete the Edmeston subarticles if you like. Nonenmac 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DC trip

Please list all your available dates in the table at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip#Date. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi again

This time, I probably won't be doing as much policy stuff as before, at least not until I become acclimated to all of these changes, like deletion and baning without discussion. But I'm happy to be back. Don't be surprised if I randomly dissappear again, though. LDan 19:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't get over how sysops seem to now have the power to delete stubs when they're just too short. When and why did they get this power? LDan 02:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics

I see you're doing a lot of work here, and that's great. But I don't understand why you're moving links from one page to another. I think that that just causes confusion. If you have a method to your madness, I won't interfere, but it does make it difficult to look back to see if any red links were deleted by mistake. Matt 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

How on earth did you edit the Recent changes page?

• Thorpe • 13:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, he's an employee; see User:Dannyisme. --Elvey 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

vzn xxm

DC meetup

It looks like the DC meetup will be on Apr30/May1. Can you reply at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip and finalize this date? --brian0918™ 03:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it was cool meeting up with you in DC. See you around. —thames

Lancaster

Hello User:Danny... User:The anon here... I would assume that you are a Wiki Administrator of a higher authority than most. I would like to talk with you about something regarding the Lancaster (disambiguation) page. If you look on the discussion page for the disambiguation page, you could probably follow what has been happening...

Basically here is the overview... There is some administrator with the screenname User:Duncharris that changed the Lancaster link to go to the English city instead of the disambiguation page. So I changed it back and gave him my reasons for doing so, which is that there are 3 Lancasters in the world that are important, 4 if you include the Ohio city. Although the English city is the original, the Pennsylvania city is the most thought of when using the term by English language speakers and also the most visited with tourists, and the California city is the largest. All three of these cities could give credability to having the primary link. As I see it, and the many others that have looked at it, all three are equal in importance and therefore the link should go to the disambiguation page, the way it was originally up to a few weeks ago. I also explained that there are cities out there that are greater than any of these Lancasters combined that have to share a disambiguation page like San Jose. So if neither San Jose can have precedence, how can a particular Lancaster? Well, he changed it back again, so now I wish for someone higher than a Wiki administrator to get involved so that it can be changed back the way it was originally and have the page protected from this arrogant British biased vandalism. Thanx... --Anon 05:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Trip planning

Hi Danny! Still working out my trip to USA next May, I just wanted to know if it would still be possible to share a couple of hours before a good meal/beer on 29th, May (Sunday). I understood that monday 30th would be far more comfortable for you but I admit planning that kind of short trip (L.A./Pasadena-St Pete/Orlando-NYC) is a hell of a job :) villy ♦ ✎ 09:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS : it's a mere question since for now, I'm still considering Monday in NY).

Search engine Fraud

Hi Danny, can you take a look at my talk page (and also in Merovinigan's). I need your Hebrew skills assistance. Thanks in advance Eranb 05:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and reply in Merovingian's talk page. Does the English Wikipedia have any rules against such a search engine fraud, or can a user do whatever he likes in his user page? Eranb 13:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka

Greetings, Danny! I am discussing User:Haham hanuka's self-nomination for adminship with User:Eranb. Eranb has claimed that Haham hanuka has generated much controversy on the Hebrew Wikipedia, where, according to Eranb, Haham hanuka is considered a troll, and does not deserve adminship here. For proof, he provided me with Haham hanuka's Hebrew Wikipedia user page: [1] I am completely illiterate in Hebrew, and Eranb said that you might be proficient in the language. Could you please verify whether or not Haham hanuka has had major negative instances on the Hebrew Wikipedia? If not, do you know someone who could? Thank you for your time, --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir, for your third-party help. Good day, --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a translation of his user page at he:? Specifically, I'm looking for answers to:

• What did he do on that Wikipedia that was so wrong?
• Was he blocked on that Wikipedia? (that would explain why he hasn't edited since 2004)
• Who put that stuff on his user page? Was it an admin?

This is in preparation for a very likely RfC or RFAr. Thanks. --brian0918™ 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Danny!

I have admired your work from a distance for many, many months, and it goes without saying that I consider you to be truly one of the most outstanding editors in this encyclopedia; the best it has to offer. This is why your vote in support of my RfA means so much to me. Many thanks. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 03:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"Reverend" Cantor

Merlinzor (talk • contribs) aka 68.195.57.9 (talk • contribs) appears to have a particular fixation on Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Catholic-Jewish reconciliation, and the use of the term "Reverend Cantor". Would you mind looking at his recent edits and giving your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mentoring and ward

Good evening Danny. I'm not sure I like the term "mentor" for the function that mentors serve, as it leaves me unable to find a good word for the person being mentored. I may be the least clued-in admin in the barn, but I just learned that User:Mike Garcia has you for a mentor, pursuant to the rather unfortunate history of his edits. I would like to point you to a conflict that I've been asked to look into (you can see the request on my talk page) between Mike and two editors over the article Skin Yard. User:Silversmith and User:Chameleon have both been trying to discuss all the band's albums in a single article, while Mike keeps insisting on a stub for the band and a stub for every album. Silversmith (graciously) and Chameleon (not so much) have asked Mike to elaborate his reasons on the talk page, but to no avail (not surprising, given Mike's history, I suppose, that he would not be very communicative), and Mike continues to revert (twice at least in violation of the 3RR).

I have no opinion on the band at all. I do, however, believe in substantial articles rather than stubs and consolidation of like with like. More to the point, Silversmith, in particular, is getting very stressed by this, and she was very disturbed when Michael entered a request for Advocate on the matter, after threatening to report her for her edits.

I've written to Silversmith to explain that I would speak to someone who knew Michael and that I hoped all of this could be taken care of peaceably. I don't think it's appropriate to rehash any of the history or cast aspersions, so I've kept all that dark and intend to continue doing so. Please let me know if you find yourself unable to act in this case or overworked or overtaxed by all these complaints. I just figured that I'd try to head off a potential RfC on him, as he's beginning to cause some rising temperatures. Thanks. Geogre 02:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Inscription

Here is the inscription you wanted:

Our soul shall never perish

freedom knows no dying

and the greedy cannot harvest

fields where seas are lying

Cannot bind the living spirit

nor the living word

cannot smirth the sacred glory

of the Almighty Lord

--Taras Shevchenko, The Caucasus, 1845

→Raul654 21:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia at German Wikipedia or not

Hello, Danny. I just read and answered your e-mail after I read your message at my own talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cong

Danny, I moved Cong to a new page, Cong (Ethnic), because it was getting way to many hits from other Congs, notably, my article on Cong (Mayo). I didn't want to edit your user page, however to change the backward link there. --Bastique 02:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Any advice?

Hey, I want to make a major proposal — to replace AD/BC with CE/BCE. I am not asking if you agree (though of course I appreciate your views) but I wonder if you have any idea how I should make this proposal? There has been a long debate on the Jesus page, and my explanation for my proposal is very very long. It affects many pages, not just Jesus. And my proposal is I think too long to put on all the relevant talk pages. Is there any convention? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) already says both styles are acceptable. Pcb21| Pete 21:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior

Hi, I'll be glad to help. When should it be ready? Are there other pages ready for translation? I'll only be able to work on the Spanish for Latin America version. I used Wikichicos as a prefix instead of Wikijunior, but if you prefer I'll move the page. Cheers, Ascánder 04:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is at Wikibooks:es:Wikichicos Sistema Solar/El Sol, it's 30% translated. A friend (Jdiazch) has volunteered to translate texts in figures. Another friend (Javier Carro) is proofreading. I'll drop a note when finished. Ascánder 12:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Translation completed and proofreaded. Cheers. Ascánder 02:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Island not shown in true geographical position translates to la isla no aparece en su verdadera posición geográfica.

What is a wild pig?, a Boar? Ascánder 03:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the map. Unfortunately, there's a typo in the text: The sequence no es aparece has two verbs in third person together which is not allowed by the Spanish grammar. It could be changed into either no aparece or no está.

The second page is at Wikibooks:es:Wikichicos Grandes Felinos/León and is linked by interwikis with the English version. Translation and proofreading will soon be completed. Other pages are under translation. I've warned our new helpers that the English version is not yet finished. Ascánder 03:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabian sea --> Mar Arábigo

Laccadive Sea: Got no definitive reference. The islands are generally referenced as Islas Lacadivas en el Mar arábigo (Laccadive Islands at the Arabian Sea). I'll ask for help. Ascánder 14:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Got it: Islas Laquedivas for the islands and Mar Laquedivo for the sea. Ascánder 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the map. It's very kind of you to help us translating maps. The lions article is completely translated, and hope that it'll be proofreaded very soon. Ascánder 14:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Now Wikibooks:es:Wikichicos Grandes Felinos/León is proofreaded (thanks to Javier Carro). Please let me know when other chapters are ready for translation. Ascánder 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Map id: - Thank you

Hi, thanks for translating the Andijan.PNG map in Bahasa Indonesia. All of the names are correct. Currently, most, if not all, of the maps in wiki Indonesia is virtually in English :) --*drew 06:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to help you. --*drew 10:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen that category. Thanks again for your help. Do you still encounter error in registering account there? Also Danny, maybe you can tell me how to modify the map so that I can also translate them into Indonesian? --*drew 03:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Inflammatory user name referring to Mike/Hephaestos conflicts

See WP:AN/I - either it's someone trying to make trouble or Mike in a bad mood - David Gerard 14:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is about The truth about Hephaestos, no, I wasn't in a bad mood. Especially when I warned him about being at part of Hephaestos' user and talk page. Plus, he left me an incoherent message on my own talk page by talking to the wrong person (please see). I don't understand what's going on and I just erased it anyway. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

important message for danny

sup danny... how u doin, i am just a little curious about a comment on genocide, im new to this wikipedia stuff, i don't kno how to do anything here, but i read a comment which i have been lookin for, for so long you wouldn't believe... the post reads

Even when it is pointed out, he won't behave and he comes up with "X alleges... Y alleges..." which is nothing but POV.

anything you say is POV, and especially this situation, i hate people erasing the past, your honor and your credentials are being laughed at... just happy the truth is the truth and i can call ur bluff.... :-D

Mike Garcia at Missing Wikipedians

Danny, Mike seems to be getting into a conflict with a number of editors (me included) at Missing Wikipedians. Would it be possible for you to take a look, and perhaps try to cool things down? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, your charge has crossed the line. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Etoumbi

You asked me if I could to translate Etoumbi article into Serbian. Yes, I can, but I do not know what exactly you ask me to do. Do you want that I translate and post this article in Serbian Wikipedia or you want this translation for some other purposes? User:PANONIAN

• Etoumbi will be translated into Portuguese in a few moments, it is a short article though... -Pedro 00:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Translated into Portuguese. That virus again. :S -Pedro 01:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

IDF Chiefs of Staff articles

Hello Danny : As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Danny, as MathKnight and I translated two articles and you made one wonderful translation, I wanted to see if you can also do the last one (Dado). Thank you for considering it! Best, gidonb 00:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your efforts. Danny, thanks for the high-grade translations especially! I have done some very minor copy-edits and linking. Of all the articles, the one on David Elazar still needs the most work, it's a very weak stub, so is there any way you could add to that? It would round out the 18 articles. Thanks again. IZAK 07:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Danny, thank you for completing the Dado article! Best, gidonb 22:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Hello Danny: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Danny, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

David Elazar (and a reminder)

Hello Danny: You did an outstanding professional job with the David Elazar article. Thank you. I have just proof-read it, and it is certainly no longer a "stub". Yasher Koach ! (By the way, in an unrelated way, when do you plan to archive this talk page of yours? It takes so long just to download and to be able to read the most recent comments. Best wishes.) IZAK 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Article request

I swear this is totally unrelated to the above, but I wanted you to write me an article on Shmuel Gonen. →Raul654 08:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I ask because I am in the middle of Rabinovich's book about the Yom Kippur war and I'm thinking about getting it up to featured article status.

Kibbutzim

Thanks for adding religious kibbutzim. I'd like to categorize the list further. Are you aware of what the major kibbutz organizations/affiliations are? I thought we could create a crosstab with region and affiliation in the column and row, respectively, with a list of the kibbutzim in the relevant cells. What do you think? --Leifern 14:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

history writing in digital projects?

Hello,

I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement, and Academic Challenger suggested that you would be a good person to interview. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Dan Shomron

Hi Danny, the Dan Shomron article desperately needs your help, when you have a little time. I am also somewhat curious about his role in negotiations for the 1997 Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (the "Hebron Protocol"). Best wishes. IZAK 09:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kipur War

Danny, could you please have a look at User_talk:El_C#Edit_to_Yom_Kippur_War and at User_talk:Raul654#Yom_Kipur_War. Me and Raul are having a minor content dispute about the lead, and I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on it. As I told Raul, I am happy to follow whatever you decide is the correct course of action to take for this case. Thank you in advance, El_C 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Baseball Portal

Yeah, I'd certainly be willing to help you guys with that. But, I'm still not very skilled with wikipedia as far as technical stuff goes. So I'm not sure how much help I could be of. From reading the article about it, I basically understand what they are, but I didn't really notice anything about how the maintainers keep it up and running. Again, I'd love to help, but as I said I could only help with stuff I know how to do.

TrafficBenBoy 23:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds great. Keep me updated. Thanks a lot.

TrafficBenBoy 00:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! Just tell me how I can help.

TrafficBenBoy 02:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I just put something up in the Did You Know section. Does that look right?

Alright, I'll get on that.

I probably did the requested articles template wrong. But I put some up.

TrafficBenBoy 03:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I just put another one up, but it's probably too long. I'll try to shorten it.

How often do we change the featured article, picture, etc.?

TrafficBenBoy 03:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got to get going. But thanks a lot for starting this, and I'll be sure to help out as much as possible. I'll finish the "Did You Know" tommorow. Thanks again.

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Hi, Danny. Please see this and comment if you like. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Question_for_Sam:. Sam Spade 00:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Baseball project

Hi Danny, I just received your mesage, sure I'll interested in helping out. Tony the Marine(UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Baseball

Hello Danny! Have you considered adding a section named this date in baseball? Cheers, MusiCitizen 02:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

About Today in baseball

It's OK, Danny, I will. Good luck, MusiCitizen 14:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please, check it. This is only a try. MusiCitizen 15:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

,שלום דני

ראה בבקשה את ההודעה ששלחתי לך באנצ' האחרת.

,בברכה ובהוקדה

El_C 22:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiPortal

Danny, I'm probably missing something, but shouldn't the size of the baseball be shrunk to fit inside the template?

No, if it looks right to you, it must be my computer, so we should just leave it. Unless anyone else mentions it to you.

TrafficBenBoy 01:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, nothing else really comes to mind.

TrafficBenBoy 01:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon protection

See User talk:200.95.39.125; the crux of this matter seems to be whether or not User:200.95.39.125 is Jules Siegel. -℘yrop (talk) 17:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's been over a month, so I'm going to unprotect this article. Please let me know if you have any objections. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Hello Danny

Please check the edits I did on WPBB. My regards. MusiCitizen 22:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Election notice update

Hi, Danny, Aphaia is me ;) Would you like to update Wikipedia:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (or replace) with our meta version? Cheers, --Aphaea* 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ghetto

Thanks for the link to your gallery, I hadn't noticed it. As to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising pics - It's great that our government finally decided to publish some of these pics online. Too bad they're not PD. AAMoF most of them would apply since they are only stored in Polish State Archives, which cannot claim copyright to them, but it's better not to break the license the Polish ministry of foreign affairs used, eventhough it is absurd.. Halibutt 23:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I'm from Warsaw. The institution you are referring to is most probably the ŻIH, or the Jewish Historical Institute. They have a great collection of pics, and organize a great number of really interesting exhibitions and lectures, but they barely ever publish them. Perhaps if I repaired my scanner I could scan a number of pictures from pre-1994 Polish books ({{PD-Poland}} license applicable).

BTW, you might be interested in this site and the future museum of the history of Polish Jews. Halibutt 23:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the commie rule had at least one advantage: no sensible copyright law. That's why we shamelessly use it to the wiki's favour :D. Check Template:PD-Poland for details. BTW, who is the author of that book? Halibutt 00:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The text says: The album includes texts by Ruta Sakowska, Marek Edelman, Jan Karski, Franz Blatter, Maria Kann and the archives of the Jewish section of the Main Headquarters of the Home Army. I don't have the book, but might be interesting. Halibutt 00:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to find it in the Warsaw University Library, they should have it. Halibutt 00:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Donne

Ok it is done, at least as far as I'm concerned. Let the cat(egory) people and the tax(obox) people have their way. The information in it is at least not a disgrace. Geogre 17:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello good Danny

let me know what you think of my gas metal arc welding cutaway illustration contribution. TTLightningRod 17:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

Spanish interface

Hi, when you use the Spanish interface and try to edit a file, the toolbox does not appears. At the commons, they've found a workaround defining the mediawiki message MediaWiki:Infobox alert/es with a suitable text. I wrote the details here several days ago. Could you please define this message? Thanks in advance. Cheers, (oups, no edit toolbox for me...) Ascánder 16:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost forgot. The problem is the same at meta (see meta:Talk:Es/Portada). Thanks

1. The default value for the property MediaWiki:Infobox alert/es seems to be missing some \n characters, which produces an error in the javascript code included for edit pages, preventing the tool bar from displaying. The workaround is to define the property with the necessary \n symbols.
2. The problem is observable, you just need to change the interface language to Spanish and open an edit page. When you ask for the source of the page, you see the following odd lines:

addInfobox('Pulsa un botón para ver un texto de ejemplo','Escribe el texto al que quieres dar formato.
 Se mostrará en la caja de información para poder copiar y pegar.
Ejemplo:
$1
se convertirá en:
$2');

instead of the single line

addInfobox('Pulsa un botón para ver un texto de ejemplo','Escribe el texto al que quieres dar formato.\n Se mostrará en la caja de información para poder copiar y pegar.\nEjemplo:\n$1 \nse convertirá en:\n$2');

Hope this helps to clarify the problem. Ascánder 10:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, m:User:Sanbec, sysop at meta, found the workaround. Ascánder 12:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more request

Danny, I have one further request -- I'd like a translation of Agranat Commission (which I assume exists on the hebrew wikipedia).

If you've been paying attention, Yom Kippur War has been vastly improved over the last week :) →Raul654 05:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Overdue deletion of uncertified RfC

Danny, on 17 APR 2005 an RfC was initiated that was never certified by two people. Since you were the subject of that RfC, I was wondering if you want it kept. If so, please let me know or edit the RfC's talk page to indicate your wishes. If you do not want it kept, I will delete it per policy. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

discussion at hebrew wikipedia

Please look at this discussion. I couldn't find the page about this at meta or at this wikipedia. Thanks, Troll Refaim 07:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible new mediator and committee chair

Mgm has nominated himself to be a mediator and indicated he's willing to take over as chair. In an effort to help keep the mediation process alive, it would be nice if you could comment on this at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. --Michael Snow 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm trying to establish if you're an 'active' mediator or not - are you? Your e-mail address given on the MC page bounces, BTW. Dan100 11:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Israel or Palestine for the region?

Hi Danny, please see the heated discussion at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region? over revisionist attempts to eradicate mention of (ancient!) "Israel" and "Judah" entirely in favor of "Palestine". Please add your views. Thank you. IZAK 11:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Since you are listed in Mike Garcia's page as being one of his mentors, I believe you would be interested to know about recent complaints about his behaviour on Mezmerize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes for the details. --cesarb 13:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

I was simply wondering if you would still oppose any application of mine to the Mediation Committee. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Histogenesis

Hi Danny, why was Histogenesis deleted? Rich Farmbrough 23:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstatd it and unblanked it, and tidied it a tiny bit. You deleted it on the 17th of May, so looking again might remind you why. OTOH it was blanked at the time, so someone might have requested a speedy. Rich Farmbrough 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baseball portal

Hello Danny. I'll be away from Wikipedia for a week, so hopefully in the next few days, I will have everything back on track. I'm working hard as I can, but I think we need some new volunteers who would enjoy editing some of the baseball events to keep this portal consistent. Many of us like to see things immediately and it takes time for some of us to put everything in order, like refreshing the article section or changing the photo. Cheers, MusiCitizen 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Water and Heart

I must catch up on day job... however I'm turning the water project article constantly in my head. Should have some new material up as soon as I can. Take care Big D. E

Spanish interface

Hi, sorry to insist, but could it be possible to set the property as proposed in my previous note, while the problem is solved by the developers? This workaround has been used at the commons for months now without problems. Most important is to apply the workaround at meta which is a multilingual site by nature. (There I recommended to the users with the problem to switch to the English interface, which is really a shame). Cheers. Ascánder 17:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is solved here, thanks. It still remains meta with the problem. Cheers. --Ascánder 28 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)

User:Rabbis vs. real Rabbis

Dear Danny, your professional opinion about this is needed: There is a new user who has chosen the controversial user name of of User:Rabbis for himself. I have just sent him a lengthy message with my concerns and a request that he change this name to avoid confusion with real Rabbis, see User talk:Rabbis#Choose another name please. Perhaps you could help him choose another more appropriate name. This user's few entries have revolved around a vote in support of keeping a controverssial article (about some Jewish clergy meeting with the last Pope) that was eventually deleted [2] downloading a newspaper article (because it mentions a cantor who later met with the Pope, singing at a concert) that is nominated for deletion [3] votes to keep a vanity article at [4] then votes to "undelete" article about anon cantor [5] then threatens "I've discussed the matter with my colleagues, and we are getting the Anti-Defamation League involved now" at Talk:Relations between Catholicism and Judaism#Removed vanity section, then inserts stuff into Relations between Catholicism and Judaism and is reverted twice [6] and [7] Please look into this. Thank you. IZAK 23:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ADL "threat"

• See Talk:Relations between Catholicism and Judaism#Removed vanity section: "...You've gone too far removing this. If you do not leave the article alone, the situation will escalate. I've discussed the matter with my colleagues, and we are getting the Anti-Defamation League involved now. You see, the event happened whether you like it or not. It made history, and you do not have the right to rewrite history by removing all references to the event in your so called "encyclopedia.". I hope you are content. --Rabbis 12:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)" and further context and discussions overe there. IZAK 01:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantors vs. real Cantors

Hi again Danny and thank you for checking into User:Rabbis' antics, but there is another piece to this it seems (so far): The following seems clearly related to the above User:Rabbis patterns only this time my objections have been lodged against User:Cantors for similar reasons, see User talk:Cantors#Choose another name please. This user may be a sockpuppet for User:Rabbis because of a corresposnding pattern and a fixated interest in "Eliezer Kepecs" almost exclusively. User:Cantors' first edit [8] is on 17 May '05, and User:Rabbis was on 5 May '05 [9] . From the start [10], User:Cantors is focused on only one thing "Cantor Kepecs" (himself?), lists the article about himself (?) for "undeletion" [11] and votes to "keep" [12] and [13] two vanity articles that are deleted, inserts and is reverted for interfering with undeletion policy discussions [14], and after placing six (!) "categories" on his user page has them removed [15] by an admin. This needs some serious correction. Thanks for your help. IZAK 02:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD of User:Cantors

Under these extradordinarily confusing circumstances, I have now nominated the User:Cantors page for deletion of contents and also renaming. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cantors. Thank you. IZAK 03:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other user names with the same "Cantor" content

On User:Merlinzor and User talk:Merlinzor there is the same stuff repeated as on User:Cantors. Is this guy meshugge or what? It now looks to me like serial spamming of the same article by creating sockpuppet "user" pages. It's more than a little nutty. IZAK 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And again at User talk:Professor Kaufman, mostly the same as above. This is some nut. IZAK 03:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mazeppa

We already have the article on him. It's at Ivan Mazepa and it actually spells with one "p" in Ukrainian and Russian.  Grue  05:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting

Thanks for adding the Auguste Francois Baird article. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, I have replaced the generalized {{stub}} tag with {{artist-stub}}. When you create new articles, it would be great if you could use these more specific tags whenever possible. Thanks, and continue contributing to Wikipedia! Conscious 05:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. HKT 05:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your services are needed

Danny, I'd appreciate it if you could put in a word on Talk:A'man. There's a debate about what transliteration we should use for them on Wikipedia. →Raul654 17:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could comment on my suggestions in Talk:A'man#Apostrophe.--Doron 08:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [16] cheers Antares911 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi Danny, i invited you to the discussion above, unfortunately you haven´t answered yet. maybe you could spare a couple of minutes of your time on your views? thanks alot, appreciate it... Antares911 29 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Danny, thanks for helping out on the matter of redirects of Dutch villages! - Galwaygirl 19:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

Hi Danny,

If you think a redirect qualifies for deletion, the proper procedure is to list it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Please restore the redirects for now, and wait until the discussion there is finished.

Patrick 22:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! I hope they come in handy :) But I can't claim credit for starting the Palestine wikiportal; Revolucion started that, I just got the ball rolling a bit. - Mustafaa 00:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia at American Idiot

Don't know if you're aware but Mike Garcia has been reverting American Idiot to make sure "his" image stays on, even though there is a clear consensus on the talk page (reinforced by an RFC) for the newer, higher quality image. The page is now protected. However more worryingly from the history and the talk page it appears he has been logging out and using anonymous IPs to push "his" image. This is a clear breach of his editing conditions ("He will edit only under his new Mike Garcia account"). the wub "?/!" 18:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The same thing has happened several times with Mezmerize, the System of a Down album, where Garcia has gotten into multiple silly edit-wars over such things as the album's release date and chart positions, each time acting arrogantly like he thinks he owns the article and can boss everybody else around. In some cases a consensus has been developed on the talk page that goes against him, but he ignores this. Also, on a few occasions an anonymous IP address has appeared out of nowhere to make reversions to Garcia's preferred version, often accompanied by edit comments even more crude and obnoxious than those done under Garcia's own account. *Dan* 18:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, he's now violated the 3RR, listed his content dispute on WP:VIP, and threatened to ban an anonymous user. Could you please try to handle this before things escalate? Thanks. --W(t) 23:16, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Mike Garcia is a unique case in Wikipedia. I will speak to him, but I urge you to talk to him gently. I think you will find that you get better results that way. Sometimes backing off for a while is a better way to resolve a problem. Danny 23:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for handling people in whatever way they respond best to, however his uniqueness does not entitle him to break our rules and etiquette. --W(t) 23:22, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Unique my ass. For how long is this community going to tiptoe around this troll just because he kicks up a louder fuss than the users that, I'm sorry, don't habitually break the rules. Anyone else would have had their ass booted way away from this site months ago and rightly so. If you're going to instill some etiquette and control in him, Danny, than bloody well do it. These complaints are not going to go unanswered forever, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that he has too many times tested the patience of all here. Wally 06:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too right. I can't help thinking that the treatment of Mike is part of what RickK was talking about when he left. the wub "?/!" 11:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Music encyclopedia and the encyclopedia project

Thanks for all your assistance with the music encyclopedia topics. I wanted to obtain your view on something: User:Bluemoose has removed all mention of the music encyclopedia from the missing articles project page and template and has pretty much orphaned it. The project page seems to be pretty clear that the project's goals are to get the material from all encyclopedias. I thought the word all would be redundant unless we were also talking about specialist encyclopedias such has encyclopedias of law, medicine, or in this case .. music. I wanted your view before I reverted his changes. Thanks! Gmaxwell 16:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already talked to him on the talk page. It appears he has been operating under the impression that the list was not the topics from encyclopedias of music, but rather a random list of music subjects. As such I've pointed out his mistake and reverted the changes. We'll see if he comes around. Gmaxwell 17:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Checkers

I can understand why you would want to delete Wikipedia:Checkers, but I have a couple of issues to bring up first. One, there exists a page for playing Chess in the department of fun. Why shouldnt my page be allowed to stay. Second you didnt delete the page properly by putting it through the VfD process. Have a nice day Jaberwocky6669 20:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Al Bayda'

Thanks for sorting out this, I got called away before I had chance to write even the stub. Pcb21| Pete 21:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

User:Mike Garcia again. Mike is involved in a content dispute over the date of release of this movie and is edit-warring and another editor is getting upset. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting upset (no one on WP has seen me upset :). IMDB and MGM both say the movie was released in 1989 but Mike insists it's 1988 and using insults ("liar", "idio", "big dumb idiot" in edit summaries, B&T's talk page, my talk page). Cburnett 01:16, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted baseball pics

Hey Danny, here are the pages with copyrighted baseball pics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Delgado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Finley

Green Day

I would like to notify you of another incident with Mike at Green Day which parallels the same situation with Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Dates on cases are only the copyright date and, IMO, Mike fails to understand that the copyright date is not the release date. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Follow up: I have banned him for violation of the 3RR policy. From what I see in the longs, this is the second in a week's span and would have been a third if he wasn't handling the B&T Excellent Adventure as an anonymous. Cburnett June 28, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get the email. Cburnett June 29, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

viruses

I have been adding them to the list of computer viruses. At the moment i am making a big list of them all, then i'll add them all in one go. Bluemoose 29 June 2005 10:02 (UTC)

When is an overview actually a book in disguise?

Well, when the author knows the subject too well to let anything go by without comment. I could do a fair job on Restoration literature because I know it, but I'm not a devotee of it. On the other hand, Augustan literature is 90 Kb long, contains a book thesis, and basically is the handbook to the 18th c. I'd write, if I solicited presses to do so. I'm going to make all the current sections into stand-alone articles eventually and then chop down what's in the overview article considerably. (Oh, and by the way, I work as a grant writer these days.) Geogre 1 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

Don't Tread on Me

Hello, Danny. I have another problem here. Could you get someone to protect the new 311 album Don't Tread on Me, could you do it? It has been vandalized a couple times and I'm done reverting it by following the 3 revert rule. Feel free to leave a message at my talk page, also reply to me at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or just e-mail me to discuss this. -- Mike Garcia | talk 2 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Never mind. SlimVirgin just did it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 2 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Bill & Ted related edit wars

Hi, could you please take a look in at Talk:Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure? Mike Garcia seems to be having a disagreement with a number of other users including me now, and perhaps you could help improve communication. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 4 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

Nepal-geo-stub

Hi - I note you've recently created a new stub category. Did you realise that stub categories should normally be cleared by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting before creation? That way they can be vetted to check that there are a viable number of stubs (at least 60-100) and that the category does not cross the existing stub hierarchy before the stub is created.

In the case of this stub, prior to its creation there were only currently 30-40 Nepal geography stubs listed in Asia-geo-stub (34 at last count), which puts the country well below the required threshold and all the stubs in a category which was small enough not to require splitting. If there was an associated WikiProject, this might not have been a problem, but this number is really not enough currently for a viable stub category.

I have listed the newcategory at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered stub categories. if you would like to comment about the new category, please feel free to do so there. (I have also correctly categorised the stub category). Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

Keilim

Nice. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

User:Bedel23

You blocked User:Bedel23 for "insulting users" but I see no evidence of this. Please explain this block. Kelly Martin July 5, 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Fixed. Danny 5 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Kunowice

But it is only stub now. Przykuta 9 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Resignations

Hiya, I gather you are connected to elections in a returning officer capacity.

Some of the arbitrators (Delirium, Grunt, Ambi) have indicated that they wish to resign (according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee), but they are unsure how they would be replaced, or what the mechanism was.

Having thought about this, wouldn't it be the case that the next person (in this case Fennec, Mirv, Cecropia) on the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 becomes their replacement? ~~~~ 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Glosa

You recently moved an article at Glosa Language.

What happened to it - the redirect it created is red? ~~~~ 21:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Aaron ben Elijah

Thank you for letting me know, Danny, I will take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A'man

Hi, Danny. We have an issue concerning the apostrophe that I was hoping you could help settle (see talk). El_C 12:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That category on Hebrew Bible verses

There are two related votes

• A survey at Wikipedia:Bible source text on whether the entire text of a bible chapter should be included in an article (on Wikipedia) or not.
• A VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, on whether every single verse deserves its own article (rather than just the noteworthy ones).

~~~~ 11:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Georgios Karaiskakis

Γεώργιος Καραϊσκάκης, thanks to User:Project2501a David.Monniaux 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Help me, please!

A user (66.36.141.203) is repeatedly vandalizing System of a Down and got me going over the 3RR since I kept telling him/her to give it up. I just need someone to protect the page ASAP to stop it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the page protection. 66.36.141.203 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Israel trip

An unforgettable, wonderful experience. I'm so glad I went, and very grateful for the scripts you gave me. --Neutrality^talk 03:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Armenians

Could I ask you to look in at Talk:Armenian_people#23rd_century_BC.3F? And maybe lasso someone else who might have an idea how to evaluate a citation like the one given there? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tevye

Someone keeps wanting to insert into Tevye the claim that it is a Basque name. Could you look at the recent history, talk page, and (gasp!) history of the talk page? (There is really not a lot there, but the sequence is significant.) I'm inclined to revert again, but figured I should try to bring someone else into it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's dictatorial move

Hello Danny: Can you please research and re-open the ridiculous move by User:Sjakkalle. I have sent him this message: Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Danny: I read your message. If you could go ahead and re-open the VfD or do what is needed it would be greatly appreciated by many people on Wikipedia I am sure. I left messages with some important Users who should get involved. I will be away the next number of days, so I cannot give this matter more attention at this time. All the best and zai gezunt. IZAK 11:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Want to mentor an admin?

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Garcia 2. You'll laugh, then you'll plotz. Uncle Ed 15:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia continues to add misinformation to System of a Down

In edits such as these [17] [18] [19] [20], Mike Garcia continues to add misinformation to Wikipedia articles. He is reverting to out of date chart positions for one of the album's singles. The correct positions have been verified on billboard.com. He also lied to get the article unprotected: He asked that the article be unprotected so that he could add a wikilink, but in reality he wanted to revert to his misinformed version. I don't think Mike has reformed, but you may want to talk to him about this. Rhobite 21:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

He is at it yet again today on Hypnotize. Though thankfully this time he was blocked. 66.36.133.229 03:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am telling you, you are the one whose vandalizing the page. You are the one whose making bad contributions. -- Mike Garcia | talk 15:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical_persecution_by_Jews

You might be interested in what is being discussed at Votes for Undeletion regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Historical_persecution_by_Jews --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Lower case links

Ack! Sorry. Some of those weren't me, and I didn't know I had been responsible for any of them, but I guess I was. I'll try to fix them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

2004EB weekly collab

As the weekly collaboration will be changing over tomorrow, might I suggest that you select the page with the most work to do? That gives us the widest choice of articles to provide. Currently that's page 13. I guess all pages should be given a chance to be collab of the week before we go back and do old ones again because there are several pages less complete than page 13 and yet they have already had their week. Soo 11:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize (again)

The vandalism is back again. I am guessing it should be protected again so it can stop. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, not vandalism, as far as I can see. And you've been in a whole series of silly content disputes, many of them in the pages regarding System of a Down, and were shown to be wrong in a few... you probably shouldn't be making demands. *Dan* 00:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

As I wave goodbye to Wikipedia for now....

Pgio: (who's leaving this wiki too) I can not for the life of me understand people who claim to be scientific, refusing to simply allow others a place to build articles which if nothing else, document work "outside" of the mainstream. The group that formed in opposition, will not even make short comments about how they feel material is "unscientific". I can't tell you how much I would love to here their reasoning, anything, even just one little item where they point out something I have over-looked. I do not want to, no one genuine should, want to go down a path into a field where a giant blind spot of inconsistency awaits. Especially if someone else knows what that is, I really want to know too. If they are so brilliantly scientific, why won't they simply "speak down" to my child-like level, and tell me what is so wrong with the science? It's not like I'm six years old with a delicate sensitivity, or if I had some giant Ego, they shouldn't have any hesitation attacking that.

I am driven to only two likely and realistic conclusions. Nether of which do I have an easy solution for. The first, which I just feel absolutely silly putting out there, but that a few of the influential people leading the 'pseudo label' pack, know very well there could be something of substance to the original version of the material presented... yet for countless speculative reasons, want to keep it marginalized. (ya, I know, that's called a "Conspiracy Theory". Whoopty fuck'n do da, I said it)

The second possibility, and the one which I feel is vastly more insidious, is shear unadulterated, self inflicted, self perpetuating, ignorance. Compounded by the inertia of ones own conform zone. This wiki is very young, but if this is any example of where it is going, it is nothing more than the latest high-tech gadget which will help man once again listen to a skipping record.

What can I say, click my email if you like, I would be delighted to share some other thoughts I have of Aeth, Plasm Cosmology, EUM's and a few other "crack-pot" odds n' ends that Wikipedia just isn't ready for. Peace. TTLR

Yesha (moshav)

Hi Danny: Are you able to look at Yesha (moshav) and decide if it's a Kibbutz or Moshav? The stub's brief contents are confusing. Thanks. IZAK 04:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Danny, we haven't talked much since we drove up to Boston last year. How have you been?

I have created a new project page at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, which Secretondon suggested that I tell my fellow bureaucrats about. It's designed as a forum where users with bureaucrat rights can discuss difficult situations, either beforehand (for advice about what to do) or after taking action (for review and feedback). It's similar to another page I created, which is starting to catch on (e.g., Jimbo used it this August): Wikipedia:account suspensions, which is not for 3RR or simple vandalism but for close calls and disputed blocks.

Please take a look at these new project pages and give some feedback. Good idea? Bad? Needs improvement? --Uncle Ed 12:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Beck Foundation Grant

Hello Danny,

I tried your Grants page at Meta, but then I saw more activity over here, so I thought I'd check in. I have been working on WikiJunior Solar System. I am trying to get more information about the Beck foundation, the WikiJunior grant, what's so special about this magazine (what makes it unique and therefore worth doing). etc. If you could update The WikiJunior Page and/or Contact Me I'd really appreciate it. Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 2005-09-01

Mezmerize question

I asked a question in response to something you said on the talk page of Mezmerize back in late June. I was hoping you could answer it, as the _very_ stale edit war there, and on the same subject in Hypnotize seems to be continuing. -- Norvy (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I see it as everyone opposing a specific contributor. If a compromise violates WP:NOR and WP:V, it's a lousy compromise. I know that it's a special situation with the involved contributor, but I think that we need to put our foot down on those policies. It is indeed worth edit warring with a single individual who is pushing their own POV, rather than let bogus, unverifiable information stand. It's called fighting vandalism. I assume you are aware of the situation that happened yesterday with the 3RR block and sockpuppetry? -- Norvy (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

you got a postcard :-)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made a bureaucrat! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Danny/Archive 6/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 02:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Reminder

Please be on IRC in the #wikimedia channel this coming sunday the 11th 20.00 CET to discuss about starting a project for exchanging data for all villages, provinces etc for all countries in the world through meta: Waerth 21:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sunday is September 11, at least in the Gregorian Calendar. *Dan* 21:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

:( thx Waerth 21:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Meta mail

Hello Danny,
have you received my mail from meta? Svante 22:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Svante 11:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasboudin

Hello, Danny. The user (Pasboudin) is the vandal/troll on the related System of a Down articles (Hypnotize, Mezmerize, etc.) and I have been looking for some moderators to ban the account. I looked at the history of the articles and checked his IPs:

• 66.36.144.142 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.136.123 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.148.190 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.133.229 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.130.216 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.152.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 66.36.141.29 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

and they were indeed him. The user is fond of claiming that I am the one who vandalizes and uses bad info at the page; I'm not. He has been unconvinced with my sources (MTV.com, Ultimate-Guitar.com, etc.) about the information on these articles (Hypnotize/Mezmerize) that has been removed and restored several times. Those are also one of the reasons why I told him he should never post here again when continued doing the same old thing. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, there is a compromise proposed on the talk page which has been accepted by at least 3 users, including me. Mike hasn't indicated if he accepts it yet, I hope that he will. Pasboudin 01:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Partnership with NASA?

Folks at NASA may be willing to form a partnership to provide content! This could be a good thing for getting any futuer space-related Wikijunior magazines/booklets out quickly -- they've got all the content already. It is free to use (though there are some restrictions on editing it).

Could WikiMedia form a partnership with NASA? What (if anything) can we do with material that has editing restrictions?

Thanks for the information. --SV Resolution(Talk) 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Adullamite

I was just curious why you deleted this article. --Tydaj 01:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Speller Bee

I give up, I just can't spell the easy ones...thanks for being my editor.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hot topics

The constituted missing topics project - now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Hot - is in a pretty stable state, lots of juicy missing topics, lots of attainable goals. Not sure if you're on board with it yet, but if not, I hope you will be soon :). Pcb21| Pete 09:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasboudin again

This user is editing on Hypnotize again with nothing but vandalism. This user has refused to stop. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't justify your making death threats, or vandalizing his user page, as you did. *Dan T.* 02:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Danny! I hope you are doing fine. I definitely am, I'm hitchhiking through Europe, Hospitality Clubbing, meeting many friendly people all the time... but it would be nice to have some idea what I'm gonna do after, when the money runs out :) I tried to contact you by email (by replying your mail from a while ago, and then by "E-mail this user" on Wikipedia), but haven't received any reply. Maybe there is a problem with my e-mail address? Ciao, Guaka 07:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia RfAr

I'm not entirely happy with the way Mike Garcia has been acting lately, and I'm afraid your mentorship hasn't been sufficient to stop the less than pleasant parts of his behaviour. I've requested arbitration on him here, your views on the matter would be welcomed. --fvw* 01:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Open proxies

we do not block proxies infinitely

We most certainly do if they're open, have a look at the blocking policy, the posts on the subject by jimbo or the block log for the past year and a half. Also, please let people know when you're undoing their blocks, as it is I only found out because someone else was kind enough to point it out. --fvw* 21:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain

You asked me to contact you on my talk page. I don't really know how to contact you at these pages. What is it you want? Astrotrain 18:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK- the source is [21], the image is linked from the page ([22]). Astrotrain 18:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

MedCom

Hello, I'm sending this message out to all users listed as inactive at WP:MC. Some of you have been on leave for quite some time, and I'm hoping one or two of you may return to active (every active editor has a case assigned). I know some of you are busy with other wikimedia stuff, like Angela Anthere and Danny, and some of you are busy with academic stuff, like MacGyverMagic and ClockworkSoul. However I still want to leave this message in the hope of perhaps getting some more of you on hand. It's by no means mandatory though, so don't worry. -Acting Chair, Redwolf24 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry W. Kilgore

You might want to take a look at talk:James W. Kilgore to see how your change is being characterized in a copyediting mailing list. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hello, Danny. I'm wondering if you are going to be organizing the 2005 ArbCom elections again this year. Thanks! (In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing an ArbCom election series for the Wikipedia Signpost, and your input would be greatly valued). Thanks again! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mormon_jew

Hello Danny: Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it properly termed "plagiarism" when something from one place in Wikipedia is copied to another? I suppose it might be, if credit for the copying isn't given (where would that be done on a template, on the talk page?) in accordance with the GFDL. *Dan T.* 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point here. My concern is not if this is real plagiarism or not, the issue is the underhanded "sneakiness" of using a well-worn Jewish template that connects purely Jewish topics and subsuming it for the merging of the Jewish and Mormon religions that basically have nothing in common with each other. IZAK 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, you're missing a big point. All the content here is under a the GNU Free Documentation License, and if someone wants to extend an established template, they have every right under the sun to do so. The issue of Jewish and Mormon religions having or not having similarity is of zero relevance here, as some think it does, and some think it doesn't. We're volunteers—please show some respect for our differences and work with them gracefully. - Gilgamesh 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [23] TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE "DOORS ARE SHUT" PLEASE SEE THE RELATED DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [24] Thank you! IZAK 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

in case you don't follow the mailing list....

We got this email regarding a block you made. Just thought I'd let you know. Martin 13:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• They also figured out they can post on their talk page and repeated their complaint there (User talk:68.97.16.156). Please respond to the email as soon as you can and try to be more descriptive and friendly in your block messages even if they blocked parties are hardcore vandals. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Press inquiries

Danny, take a look at my comments on Wikipedia talk:Contact us/Press inquiries. I guess you didn't like my solution, but I still think something should be done to prevent single-point-of-failure on press contacts. There are plenty of Wikipedians, so there's something wrong when a reporter can't find anyone to provide comments. Isomorphic 04:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi (az-wiki)

Hi Danny, this is Ugur Basak, who has given sysop/bureaucrat access:) It's looking better for this wiki, at least it's more active. But the main problem is lack of interest from local users. I try to encourage local users. If there will be a problem, i'll call you. Thanks for your interest.--Ugur Basak 17:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Danny. Again me. I start to use a bot in turkish wikipedia. I made an announcement, currently we have no policy for bots. I'll (currently started) creating 1..2000 year categories. I make my request in meta, can my bot have a bot flag.--Ugur Basak 08:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Separating reds from blues in the Hotlist

Danny,

Thanks! I'm still on vacation, but I'm stopping by to do some more of that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hello again! I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Der Judenstaat

Hi Danny: Please add to the stub Der Judenstaat (מדינת היהודים), if you are able to. Thanks. IZAK 09:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Siegenthaler

Could you explain why you protected the Siegenthaler article? I didn't get the impression it was particularly subject to vandalism or editwar. The Land 18:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The Land 18:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Danny, for copy editing Jânio Quadros' article... but I've a question... reelection is only considered when is a consecutive term? As such Jânio Quadros wasn't reelected. Specially because it was 2 constitutions after that term!

Hi. As far as I know, reelected means being elected again. It does not need to be a consecutive term. Thanks. Danny 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

You might at least use the real reasons for protection, no? "Corrections" isn't quite good enough a reason to protect, or we'd have to do the whole Wiki. I presume you mean "to prevent vandalism". -Splash^talk 23:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni

I was wondering why you just reverted my changes to Aria Giovanni? -Ethan (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You reverted three edits, two of which had nothing to do with the added information. Did you even look at what you were reverting? Also, there is a talk page where I discussed this. I'm confused by a request to another to revert a page - this is a wiki, can't they do it themselves? Though this is not a highly relevant point. My points are actually paying attention to the edits that you're reverting, and contributing to the talk page rather than continuing an edit war that seems to have been going on for weeks between a number of anonymous users. -Ethan (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there is oddness going on with the talk page as well now, and my comments have been moved to Talk:Aria Giovanni/archive1. I am seeing about sorting this out as well now. -Ethan (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (fixed)

Alan Dershowitz =

You really suggested what BRIAN0918 has said here: Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#Deleted_revisions. What's the reasoning behind that? - Xed 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've left this message on your Meta page as well, but I wanted to make sure you got this. At Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, a couple users and myself are attempting to gather consensus about a possible change in editing. So as not to keep the community out of the loop, we've been posting to user talk pages, which seems to have worked. If you can add your thoughts to the talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. We've gone over a few issues, ranging from perception of anti-wiki to time limits, and recycling pagemove code, so you might want to check out #Rehashing to get up to speed. Thanks in advance, Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Gone"

Why does your Wikimedia Foundation userpage say "GONE" on it? -- user:zanimum

List of fictional Elvis impersonators

The List of fictional Elvis impersonators is currently nominated for deletion. As a previous editor on that article, your opinion in this matter is valued. -Litefantastic 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature's results examined

I've looked closer at Nature's results: WP averages about 1 error every 2 KB, and the average article size is 6.80 KB. Britannica averages nearly 4 errors every 2 KB, and the average article size is 2.60 KB. See also: table of data. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 05:44

Singapore Police Force

I had a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Singapore Police Force to let you know about the complaint over the use of their logo. The force had emailed User:Huaiwei and said that they need to give permission for it to be on the page. Both him and I were reverting the page to the logo version and leaving messages at User talk:160.96.200.19 and User talk:160.96.200.18 as to why they were removing it. Eventually they left a post at Talk:Singapore Police Force and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather explaiing their reasons. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, that the logo in question was actually Image:Singapore Police Force Logo.png, which I uploaded on wikipedia claiming fairuse of a logo, although I was unsure if it infringes on Singaporean copyright laws. The logo was displayed in the said article on 18 November 2004 [25]. On 11 November 2005, I sent an email to the SPF to make an enquiry on an unrelated matter. A few emails were exchanged, asking me for which publication I was making my enquiry for. On 22 November 2005, an anon deleted the logo wih no comment left [26], and I subsequently reverted it on the same day thinking it was an act of vandalism [27]. On 24 November, I received an email from the SPF informing me that they have removed the logo due to alleged infringement of copyright, as well as issuing a warning over the unauthorised use of "any images, text and statistics from the Singapore Police Force website and all its publications". Unsure if I had indeed infringed on any copyright, I left the article as it is, and went about seeking a replacement to resolve the issue. No message was ever writtern in wikipedia informing others over the copyright infringement issue, and I admit my lapse in bringing the issue to the attention of others.

Hence almost a month later on 21 December 2005, another anon removed the logo once again [28], resulting in a series of revert warring between the same anon and User:CambridgeBayWeather [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Finally on 22 December 2005, I ended the edit warring by replacing the disputed the logo with a self-taken image instead [36]. Only when this happen, did the anon finally left a message on the article's talkpage, as well as in CambridgeBayWeather's talk page a few hours after I replaced the logo [37]. Responses to the above message has been made in the respective article's talkpage expressing our intentions to act on any violations of copyright laws.--Huaiwei 13:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Muni

I see that way back there you wrote what is still the bulk of the Paul Muni article. Any idea what your sources were? It would be good to add some references. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! -- Mike Garcia 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies

Danny, just letting you know that I am taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. The reason why I have not edited for a while is because I was tired of editing here. If you need anything, you can still e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. -- Mike Garcia 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Leggett

Hi there,

I just thought I'd let you know that I changed the redirect you had created a while ago (Leggett) to a disambiguation page. I hope that's OK with you.

Paulcardan 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Other's Talk Page Comments

Please do not remove other people's talk page comments in future, even if you disagree with them. Removing such comments is considered vandalism (look up "Changing people's comments") - remember that there is no censorship on Wikipedia. --Badharlick 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

List of computer viruses up for deletion

You seem to have a vested interest in this article. Please share your opinion as it is currently up for deletion. Thank you - A-Day 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Danny 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • No problem. Thanks to you for the Keep! A-Day 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Oop, looks like there's similar voting going on for the list of trojan horses. Thanks again (and sorry for bothering you!) - A-Day 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks for your help! A-Day 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

tpi:

I've been doing some edits on tpi.wikipedia.org and I intend to continue contributing there. I'd like to edit the main page so we can have a nice main page there.. Thanks. -- Caffelice 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Acutally ISLAM became predominate in Palestine in the seventh century. Arabs were living there long , long before that.

Quadell's RfB

I'd like to apologize for removing your vote from Quadell's RfB; I assure you it was totally unintentional. I was looking in the history for the first edit claiming to withdraw Quadell's nomination (which was an anonymous AOL IP), and I simply missed that you had also voted in your edit that had -- I'm sure unintentionally -- reverted the hoax. I am sorry about doing that and I certianly was not implying at all that you had anything to do with the hoax. -- MicahMN | μ 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Saint

For being a saint.

For all the important things you do for the Foundation, I hereby canonize you a Saint of Wikipedia. -- Essjay · Talk 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss me?

I'm back. I'll try to stay as long as I can this time. Mike Garcia 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsure if you are aware

Several pseudoscience former editors of wikipedia are planning on publishing a book. Your photo apparently is on the cover. http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/images/Wikipedia_Techno-Cult_of_Ignorance.jpg Or at least Zscout and I are pretty sure your one of the faces on there. You might want to do something about this.  ALKIVAR™ 11:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Danny. I wish to confirm that it is your photo at [38] is used on the cover of this book. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (Zscout370).

Danny: Please restore the references to the books that bear the ISBN's of 1-894840-36-4 1-894840-38-0 to Paulo Correa's biography. It was very foolish of you to try to hide behind other other admins removed them on your behalf, in some misguided attempt to protect you. You are a big boy now and can accept the fact that you photo is on one of those two books. Please recognize that the ISBN's are real and part of Dr. Correa's list of published books. Get a grip and yourself, find that ol' NPOV stride within youself once again and put 'em back in. Be a man. Hey, you do not need my advice: go talk to Brad about this. Brad will tell you that the smart thing to do is to go put those two books back in. Otherwise: you hand ammunition to others, who can make you (no, not anybody else, just you) look very foolish. Show those other admins that you do not need their help in managing your own emotional challenges. You can handle them very well on your own, thank you very much. OK, OK, maybe you are not exactly the Rock of Gibraltar, but still, you can take it like a man. -- 75.26.1.119 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean language and a dirty mind

Ok, per your request, John Cleland has been totally rewritten. If you see other 18th c. topics, let me know. What used to be there was kind of awful, and I'm still displeased by the disambiguation stuff stuck on top of it, but one problem at a time. Geogre 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Still The Achilles' Heel of Wikipedia.

Maybe someone who checks in on this talk page might now where to go with it?

First, a public reply to Dragons flight, (and maybe his own sockpuppet "Freestylefrappe"): Hardly a "sockpuppet" when I used the very same name.... followed by a "2". Or are you talking about blocking Pgio "too", who simply agreed that someone here is quite a J_rk? I asked so clearly that you wouldn't take away WMC's opportunity to block me himself.... I would have been proud. But you knew that too, right?

Wikipedians: I freely admit, that my own level of civility here has lowered.... even against my own admonishment to others to avoid such behavior. All I can say, is that it is a VERY difficult dynamic to avoid when some here play by such despicably manipulative and base rules of engagement. I'm thinking of that dichotomy between people who claim that their Ends or so worthy, that they should get a pass on their occasional stray from acceptable means, vs. those who retain some hold on the idea that they will be judged by their Means, no matter the final outcome.

This is made all the more difficult where users such as Admin WMC, who know full well the self imposed limits of their opponents, demand verbal civility on one hand, and yet play such extensive games of "pretend to forget", "I didn't see that" written ten times before, and ALWAYS selectively choose the lowest hanging fruit in a nest of specific challenges to their type of behavior, contributions, and edits.

Worldly people understand the sensitive nature of situations like these. Educated people (especially those through the School of Hard Knocks) know that these situations are more often set-ups, initiated by the manipulator. The manipulator has at least learned the fine art of camouflage where they can hide very well 'in plain sight' flying the banner of Democracy. Failing to acknowledge this simple possibility, marks one as either the manipulator, or just a pseudo-intellect.

As I've said before, and will say again.... If users like WMC were genuine, they'd acknowledge human fallibility and the basic rights of dissident opinion. Doing so, WMC would quickly gain my support of his presentations on mainstream understanding. He gets that part right VERY OFTEN and has demonstrated a tenacity to seeing his POV upheld. Good for him, and why I have absolutely no trouble with his dominance over others trying to write articles presenting such information. Yet why? Why does he refuse to acknowledge his lack of verse in material outside of his very public field of knowledge? Why does he go so far in his chilling drive to stifle the good faith presentations of non-mainstream fields?

Please, I'm not just talking about aether theories alone. The electric fields have plenty to say about corollary/causal dynamics in cogent presentations about a very possible relationship to atmospheric phenomenon. Damn if WMC shouldn't be reading some of that stuff instead of JUST pointing out how it's counter to the formulas used in current Climate Models. I mean, just forget about the LONG history of trial and repeated errors in aether postulation, the mysteries of electricity still surround us and we would all benefit by keeping an open mind about that.

In the least, do we really think it wise to insist by near constant omission, any possibility that Birkeland or Alfvén currents effect our conductive atmosphere. I'm not saying that WMC's models need to be trashed or even that he should modify them this afternoon, but it's highly suspicious that he suppresses the postulations and formulations from even the notable sources working on competitive modeling. It is so suspicious, that is why I question his objectivity, and point out that he IS a PAID agent of tax dollars vested in a particular model. That he doesn't acknowledge and recuse himself, is just annoying to say the least. That Wikipedia doesn't impose some boundaries on this user's blinding conflict of interest, casts a far greater doubt upon Wikipedia NPOV all together. TTLightningRod 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade

It was at Dr Edward Lestrade. He wants the afd page removed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Red Allen

Hi. Some old business; I just noticed that you never explained how something was "resolved" on Talk:Red Allen. Still wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldwasser

Hi Danny, this stuff _is_ also made in Germany, and AFAIK the original company (Der Lachs) and recipe did indeed move to Germany after the war. I changed the text with perhaps a more neutral wording and filled what little detail I could discover; comments are welcome. -- Blorg 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD#Category:Living people

This category has been nominated for deletion. Demi ^T/_C 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm responding to your comment on JW's talk. I was on IRC when you popped up and gave the name of the new category. Prefacing the next statement with "I had no idea of your position", my instant thought was that you must be a clueless but enthusiastic noob. It is, I hope you can admit, a really dumb idea as a category. The fact that it's actually a meta-data tag and that it will fill a pressing need takes a while to sink in.

You don't have to convince me that it works. I was cleaning up the only article in the cat at the same time I was saying in IRC that it was dumb. But when I look at sponsorship, user boxen, and now this, there are a few common themes: The right thing, done too fast, a bit rudely, without enough discussion.

Surely we can start to learn from our mistakes?

brenneman^(t)(c) 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Owyhee

Hope you don't mind...I turned your redirect at Owyhee into a {{disambig}}. Tomer^talk 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter F. Paul

What do you mean "While your information may be accurate, it cannot remain as long as the allegations are unsourced. If you decide to re-add the material, please provide sources for it and present it in an NPOV manner, or else it will have to be removed again"? I tried hard to make only fair changes, and I provided sources for everything. If you dislike my particular phrasing, let me know or edit it, but don't wipe hours of research without cause. Uucp 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Israeli govt image tags

Hi, Danny. I hope you've been well. A question: can you advise on (or with whom to speak to about) creating Israeli govt.-specific fair or conditional use image tags (תבנית:תמונת חבר כנסת, תבנית:תמונות מאתר צה"ל, etc.) ... ? And whether it's permitted, that is. Thanks. All the best, El_C 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! If we're able to work that out, we'd immediately be able to use hundreds of images for a host of political and military figures (not to mention many other items). All the best, El_C 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

creation of new articles on other sites

Hi Danny, I understand that you are too one of the creators of Wikipedia. Since Jimbo did not answer my question, I was told that perhaps you would be able to answer me. See my question at User talk:Jimbo Wales#creation of new articles on other sites. Thanks, Yonidebest 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Teenage wildlife forum

Hi. I'm considering nominating this article for deletion. I've contacted you first since you've put a notice on the talk page. The reason for my nomination would be that the article does not assert (with evidence) the importance of the forum, and that it does not demonstrate in impact outside of its own user community as required by WP:WEB (Note: WP:WEB has subsequently been rewritten so that this exact wording isn't there anymore, but the rewritten guideline still requires third party verification by e.g. a recognized publication, which this article fails to meet.) Please reply on my talk page or the article talk page. Zunaid 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

I regret what part I may have played in exacerbating this matter. However, you must realize that this article has been subject to blanking, insertion of copyright material, personal attacks, a great number of sockpuppets, and general trolling for over a year. Last year I blocked one user who claimed to be Scarborough for impersonation. If this user was Scarborough, however pleasant he may have acted on the phone, on the talk page he spelled his own name wrong, issued legal threats, accusations of bias and personal insults, and generally acted in a manner unbecoming a Congressional Representative.

This article may be lacking in a number of areas, but the contentious allegations are properly sourced and clearly identified as allegations. I don't think your comments are fair to those editors who have striven to write an NPOV article in the face of over a year of sockpuppets, vandalism, personal attacks, and accusations of bias. Gamaliel 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CharlesIIIMonaco.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CharlesIIIMonaco.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeking guidance

I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post on my talk page please I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and perhaps you may please also watch that with the canges in our contents of Mahuri page, they will perhaps also change the contents - few days before they were using the words "Mahuri folks" as we had used, which they changed to "Mahuri people" when the word was chnged here. And, thanks for your concern. --Bhadani 14:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up

As a follow up to our conversation in January, could you copy/translate anything the Hebrew Wikipedia has on Shimon Agranat? Raul654 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wallerstein

Fixed it. And hello from the North Sea Coast. -- southgeist 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bodil Joensen

I started a discussion on the page Talk:Bodil Joensen about the fact that u placed the unreferenced template in the article. Ik.pas.aan 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

debate you might want to look into

You started a page Ushpizin. There is also a page Ushpizzin (2 z's). On the Ushpizin talk page there is now a debate about the future of these pages (merge or double redirect to sukkot). If you would like to participate we would appresiate your inputJon513 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hi, Dan. Responded on your e-mail as you requested. - Lucky 6.9 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer of WallaPedia

Sorry that I write at Hebrew but the exact translation of the message is too much for me:

שלום דני,
אני מודע לעובדה כי אתה לא האחראי על הנושאים המשפטיים של הקרן, אולם יש צורך בתרגום שהוא מעבר ליכולת הכתיבה שלי באנגלית של הבעיה המוצגת כאן, אודה לך אם תוכל להעביר את הנושא לעורך הדין של הקרן או לטפל בנושא בדרך שתראה לך.
אתר וואלה (http://www.walla.co.il) יצא לפני כחודשיים עם וואלהפדיה (http://pedia.walla.co.il/) , אינציקלופדית רשת המבוססת על ויקיפדיה בעברית. האתר הפר בהתחלה בצורה גסה את רשיון ה-GDFL של ויקיפדיה אולם לאחר שיחות של משתמש:דוד שי איתם נפתרו כמעט כל הבעיות (פירוט קיים בויקיפדיה:מזנון/וואלה פדיה). לעומת זאת וואלה מסרבים לטפל בבעיה האחרונה (שאיננה מופיעה בוואלהפדיה עצמה אלא באתר הראשי שלהם) למרות שגם דוד וגם אני פנינו אליהם.
הבעיה המדויקת היא הכיתוב:

הוראות תקנון זה מתווספות לכל הוראות תקנון אחר המצוי באתר ובמקרה של אי התאמה, גוברות עליהן.

ביחד עם:

אין להעתיק, להפיץ, להציג בפומבי או למסור לצד שלישי כל חלק מן הנ"ל בלא קבלת הסכמתה של החברה,

בכתב ומראש. המופיע בתנאי השימוש הכלליים (http://friends.walla.co.il/ts.cgi?tsscript=disclaimer) של אתר וואלה. פירוש תנאי זה הוא שרשיון ה-GDFL שמאפשר העתקה חופשית בתנאים מסויימים לא תקף בוואלהפדיה (המהווה אתר משנה של אתר וואלה).
אודה לך אם תוכל לטפל בבעיה זו.

Thanks, Troll Refaim 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lee Terry

Even with your summary of "wp:office block", I don't see how that articel should be protected, especially since I don't think it's been hit up on by any of the recent Congress vandals. Infact its entire history seems to be generally legit. 68.39.174.238 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Linked to same on the articel talk page. I don't know how often this happens, but if might be a good idea to have a standard message to stick on talk pages, as to all other indications, it was a protection from nowhere for no reason. 68.39.174.238 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As a person who's been informally checking many of the Nebraska-related articles for vandalism over the past year or so, I'm slightly curious as to the nature of the vandalism that occurred (I've reverted vandalism on his page several times in the past); was it along the lines of "He stole my seat!"? Also, how long will that article remain locked? – Swid ^{(edits | talk)} 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've been working down the line creating Nebraska reps, and fixing the current ones. I would also like to know when Lee Terry's artle can be unlocked so that I can add the representative box to it. Thank you. --Rayc 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Poly Prep Country Day School

I dialed down your protection on this article to semiprotection since all the vandalism was coming from unregistered accounts. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I was contacted directly by the sysadmin of Poly Prep via email in regards to this article; they wished to have the libelous edits removed from the page history per Wikipedia:Libel and I complied (I'll send a copy to you). I deleted the page and restored it to a January 14 2006 version (all edits after that date were vandalism and subsequent reversions). I apologize if I've overstepped my bounds and from this point will leave the article to you to handle. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE and protected page list

Heya! I created a special list on the WP:PP page to cover pages protected by you due to WP:OFFICE guidelines. Look it over and make changes if need be. I thought it'd be advisable to do that so then admins won't accidentally unprotect them. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

need to know if legal dept has sent letter yet

Hey Danny, I've been trying to get in touch with Jimbo about a legal issue, but I haven't had any luck. I know you guys must get flooded with bullshit legal stuff all day, but since this one is for real, I want to make sure I have done my due diligence on it. It involves a DMCA complaint that was delivered to the Wikipedia co-lo back in October or so. Please read User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Richard_Barrett_and_the_Crosstar_Image and let me know if I'm in the clear or not. Thanks for your attention and let me know if there is someone more appropriate to direct this too. Kaldari 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Danny, I sent the information to you in an email (as I have also done for Jimbo). Please let me know if someone is going to look into this issue or not. Thanks. Kaldari 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw the email from Jean-Baptiste. Good to know someone is looking into it. Thanks for your help and keep me posted. Kaldari 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Reid and Amgine

With all due respect to the both of you guys, the information that Amgine is removing is based completely in fact and is well accepted by the mainstream media. I would suggest that she reread the sources before, she makes sweeping changes against consensus.--M4bwav 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have offended your power, but not only are the new edits NPOV, but they are a rejection of the ideals that wikipedia was founded upon. You are essentially yielding to pressure to whitewash an article based on fact. I guess, truth and objectivity will always be a victim of social and political pressure--M4bwav 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The protection page said Reid was unlocked but the protect tag wasn't removed. Some of the discussion mentions "legal action" by Reid?? If so, I think the AP would be interested that Reid thinks the AP has somehow slandered or libeled him as all the information was sourced and undisputed factually by Reid. Tbeatty 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So at what point can people who study Reid, actually write about Reid? This lock thing seems pretty unusual, is there a time limit here that I'm not aware of? Also I would suggest that you read all the sources before you revert to a deletion of cross-referenced information. It seems like the consensus of most, if not all, of the Reid writers is against this locking. This whole event seems pretty heavy handed.--M4bwav 14:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for acting on the ill-advised and inflammatory assumption that Sen. Reid's office was threatening legal action. I believe that you and Jimbo have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart in this matter, though I wish that you had been quicker to explain the matter. Please let me know if there is anything in particular I can do to improve Harry Reid. NatusRoma 07:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, today (2/21/2006) was supposed to be the day in which Wikipedia was explained to Reid's staff, their concerns noted, and the page unlocked. My question is: what were their concerns and when will the page be unlocked? I don't think this is an unreasonable question. Remember, m:Protected pages considered harmful. Danny has already said that this was not a legal issue. Therefore it is hard for us to see how this fits in the protected page policy. There was no edit war. There was no vandalism. AS far as I can tell this shows a lack of trust in the Wiki community to edit this particular page and determine the scope of content. Tbeatty 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I had to travel on wiki business. Believe it or not, there are other priorities, I am more worried about your insistence on jumping on the page as soon as protection os removed. right now . Danny 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not touched the page and I haven't insisted on jumping on it. I have only insisted that the lock be explained or removed. I would hope that the belief that m:Protected pages considered harmful is more than just a web page and the administrators actually believe it. Tbeatty 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Guanaco thinks that this edit is by Mike Garcia. Are we supposed to believe that he's reformed? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Could you place a note somewhere to let us know what the WP:OFFICE wants doing with Brian Peppers? (if anything, that is ;) Physchim62 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

quick question

Hi, Raul654 directed me to you and siad you might be able to answer a question for me. here it is: what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Banu Hud

I feel bad that I just noticed, but thanks for touching up the quick super stubby article I tossed together. I found an interesting list of early rulers for the city and put together the template and stubs, it's nice to see someone expand one! Staxringold 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quinn (Actor)

Does this fall under WP:OFFICE? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words! One man's magnamonious is another man's cheesy ;) Nach0king 09:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Poly Prep Country Day School part 2

Can this be unprotected yet? Rich Farmbrough 15:34 7 March 2006 (UTC).

In fact, Tony Sidaway has unprotected the article, with Since it was protected as WP:OFFICE I thought you might like to know. I've also told Tony -- probably just an oversight, since the only place it's mentioned is in the protect log. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. He's reprotected. (Sorry for all the text here on your talk page.) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette, whcih Jimbo sprotected as WP:OFFICE, was also unsprotected March 5 by Xaosflux. I left a message on his talk as well; FYI. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored protection on this page per it's listing on WP:PP#Pages_protected_due_to_WP:OFFICE_guidelines. The protection log, deletion history, talk page, etc did not specify that this was due to WP:OFFICE, and I unprotected in good faith of a forgotten SEMIprotected page. This reply also implies that this should be over by now, as 6 weeks is more then 'a handful of days'. Perhaps a more prominent method of decaring these WP:OFFICE restrictions (and lenghts) would be helpful? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

Hard to say. Certianly I have responded to things people thought were official legal theats. Then there is the issue that while of course I've never been on the reciving end of a DMCA I've delt with many copyright complaints. Yes I've delt with that side from time to time. Strangly I never felt the need to protect anything for a significant length of time or indeed do anything without provideing at least some explantion to my fellow wikipedians. WP:Office lets you protect in the short term. If you want more either respect the community enough to give a decent justification or if stuff has to remain confidential get an arbcom injunction or something.

Incerdentaly I see you have protect Jack Thompson (attorney) without listing it on Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages.Geni 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

About Danny getting "an arbcom injunction or something", Danny obviously operates with the full and absolute backing of the entire Committee; that, however, is irrelevant. He does as is necessary. m:Don't be foolish and all that.

James F. (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Geni, if you think office tags are up for a vote then you're dumber than I think you are - David Gerard 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Hello, Danny! Several comments: first, someone else had already unprotected Poly Prep Country Day School; I removed the notice that was added but wanted to make sure you knew about it (follow-up: it's been re-added; could you provide some clarification on this? The article is no longer protected, having been unprotected by Geni, and your message on WP:OFFICE says that all articles except Jack Thompson (attorney) may be unprotected.) Also, on WP:OFFICE I moved your list and your comments to the bottom under a new section for easier reading; if you don't like that, feel free to revert. Finally, I've created a new template so that it's easier to tag such articles: {{Office}}. I hope that'll be useful to you; let me know what you think. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Poly Prep Country Day School protection

I saw Poly Prep Country Day School was unprotected but it still had your WP:OFFICE notice on it so I reprotected. I'm just confirming with you whether it should stay protected or whether it should be unprotected and the notice removed. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Office actions template

I made some changes to {{office}}, including usage information, marking it as a self-reference, and protecting it. The reasoning behind protecting it is that all other templates used to signify protected pages (such as {{protected}} and {{sprotected}}) are themselves protected, because if they weren't, they would be a backdoor loophole that could be used to modify the page, and of course, a vandal magnet. Let me know if this judgement was made in error. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 04:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:El Rom.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:El Rom.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Danny, if you know a little bit hebrew language then you can help it to tag propely. Please tag the image with whatever tag is put on hebrew wikipedia image page. It shall make avoid deletion in future. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Grenada st george.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Grenada st george.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo is being used without permission violating its copyright

The wiki at http://brethrenpedia.quist.ca/wiki/Main_Page is using the puzzle logo as their logo, could you please forward this to whoever would handle a copyright violation. Mike _{(T C)} 02:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OFFICE/Jack Thompson

Please, when you protect or unprotect a page for WP:OFFICE, I think you should leave a message on the talk page. It's all part of the transparency, it's nice to be notified of things other than the removal or addition of the template and protection. Is there a reason this wasn't done? I want to make clear that my complaints were mostly that it was a "from on high" pronouncement - it was protected, and no notice was given whatsoever except for the template. I want us to be told of these things, just a short "This page is temporarily protected because of a WP office complaint". Yes, it might duplicate the template, but when WE add templates to articles, we are supposed to explain why on the talk page. Of course I don't want the legal reasons set out, just ... yeah. A notice. A courtesy. My complaints were never on the nature of OFFICE itself. Thank you. --Golbez 20:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

moink

Have you been in contact with the user in question? [39] Is there a reason you blanked this? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I assumed some appropriate action was taken, but it is an important issue, so I had to be sure. Thanks for your help in this. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION

Hi, I have a question that might be a bit stupid, but its important if I plan to work my way up through wikipedia. It seems I have done several major edits without logging in, so they are credited to my IP address (66:71:31:62) and not to my name. Is there a way to transfer these credits? It should be pretty obvious that the IP is mine, if you look at where theyve been used. Thanks. --Pal5017 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Karaiskakis2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karaiskakis2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Ayton

Hi, I notice you removed him from the list of English poets. I wasn't sure on your reasons for this, so I reverted pending discussion. Regards, Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed the second entry :-) Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Predatory lending

Hey Danny, you put a sprot tag on this on March 30 but didn't actually push the protect button. I did it for you but wasn't sure whether or not you intended this to be considered under WP:OFFICE. You might want to clarify. (I assume so given the edit immediately prior, but wanted to check.) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the quick answer. Well at any rate it's actually sprot'ed now. =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PorthosBot

Hi, if you would have any info on PorthosBot, could you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#PorthosBot? Tx! --Francis Schonken 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Funds from EU

Hi Danny, you may remember me from IRC as Yodo (Yodo1). Any chance we could talk? Could you please email me? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zureks ) --Zureks 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cyrruss 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tito Beltran, source

Hello. It is indeed Tito Beltran who will be on trial for pedophilia crimes commited against a 7 years old girl. Nobody can deny this. The only source on the net is a neo-nazi site. [40] Do you think it's better to cite the neonazis and link to their page?

Please stop your futile removal of the content on Tito Beltrán. Improve the site instead. After all, it's still just a stub.

Cyrruss 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Danny as a former New Yorker. I thought you might be interested (if you are in the area), so take a look at this and please tell any other Wikipedians that you think might be interested in participating about this event. Thanks. Alex756 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with users and accounts

I'm having a problem with one user in particular, and I've got two accounts on my name. Two diferent problems, not related. Can you help me?

Frankie 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tito Beltrán

If you do not like the controversies you can at least keep all the wikifying that I did. The reference is in Swedish, but still relevant. --Drdan 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a public 'thank you' for clearing up the confusion and explaining what happened. After having read some of the messages on your talkpage I must say that I never realised that legal threats towards Wiki are so common. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (PS changed my signature from Drdan)

OFFICE actions or not?

It's becoming very confusing when you are using the OFFICE authority and when you aren't. Clearly, [41] and [42] are well outside of the usual protection policy here since they hadn't any edit-war problems, vandalism problems etc. You just didn't like what was in the article, apparently, since you decided not to use an office tag. With you de-sysopping people when they removing such tags, we need to know when you are and are not using Higher Authority in your actions, adn when you're justing protecting as a preference to editing. In the latter case, the protections should be lifted quickly. -Splash^talk 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was protection, not deletion. But can I ask you to actually do the pretty small amount of notpaper-work to let admins know when you are OFFICEing and when you are not? Sometimes you act as a run-of-the-mill admin round here, other times, you act officially and have imposed pretty summary de-adminning in the past. It's not fair to expect us to read your mind on this, especially when a simple edit to WP:OFFICE, or a clear protection summary, or a use of a better tag would make things immediately clear. I'm not asking you to divulge reasons where you can't, but to let people know which hat you are wearing. Admins need to be able to both abide by the decisions and to back them up if and when they are challenged. If the best we have is "yeah, maybe" it makes life unnecessarily difficult. -Splash^talk 16:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So based on the current (00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)) discussion on Wikipedia talk:Office Actions#Still in use?, it appears that you do want those two pages tagged with {{office}}, right? If not, you better clear up what would be a misunderstanding. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it is my belief that no sysop should revert another sysop's action without discussion, this edit summary [43] does not give an adequate explanation of why you removed most of the article and protected the page. Fred Bauder 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[44] - Xed 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Press Inquiry WikiNews and Blogger

From Christopher J. Bradley

Results to be placed in http://wikimaniadreams.blogspot.com

Controversial? Yes. Revolutionary? Yes. A System that will undermine and fundamentally change the way we do things? Yes. Yet the question remains, who is the figure behind this Controversial Revolution, the system that will fundamentally change the way we do things? Can we get to know him a bit better. Its not a question of whether we can or should, its a question of the perspective we frame things in.

What would it be worth, to all of us, to hear it from the founder of the ever changing and expanding Encyclopedia of everything? This WikiNews author holds him in high regard, regardless of the controversies of the past, and looks forward to a future in meeting him for a sit down at some time in the future.

As I said in my Frugalware interview, it was the Spring that Vista never sprung...Yet the march of change through the seasons continues on. Where will you be this August when Harvard becomes Wiki Central, and the Mania commences? Given my options, I'd like to be dead center in all of it, just to see what kinds of possibilities arise.

1). You’ve been at Harvard for some time, just so we can get aquainted, roughly, how long have you been at Harvard?

2). You’ve been known to travel far and wide...What is the coolest locale you’ve discovered?

3). People have accused Wikipedia of everything from being a Cabal to being outright Communist...There’s no truth to any of it is there?

4). What does it take to run the coolest hippest wealth of free knowledge on the planet, and not lose perspective?

5.) I noticed you checked up on your steak knife comment once...Can anyone really escape this sort of web narcissim? Or are we all doomed to it. I check on my own face about once a day...

6.) What do you think the up and coming resources that capture the public’s attention will be...?

7.) MySpace has been accused of predatory behaviors by its users. Is this why Wikipedia has always had the standpoint that Wikipedia is not a children’s resource? And has that helped to some degree to improve its image?

8.) When will Wikipedia fully integrate the Chinese Edition with the English Edition? Are you in need of translators, editors?

9.) What are the key items on the menu for Wikimania 2006 at Harvard in the beginning of August? What can be expected, and who will be the VIP’s thus far?

10.) What do you think of other services trying to position for similar ideas or spaces within the internet, like Everything2? Are these ideas good in and of themselves, and can they help or hinder the flow of information?

11.) Can you talk a little bit about the Creative commons liscense? What are the reserved rights and how can we find out about them?

Thank you for your time Mr. Wales, It is always nice to interact with you and the members of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Bradley 69.161.110.89 07:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Chris Bradley 07:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

When you protect or delete a page because of a WP:OFFICE issue, you must - must - state so. WP:OFFICE is a policy and a process that we have been forced to accept. If you want us to continue to accept it, then you must make the policy and process clear. When you protect and/or delete a page, PLEASE state that it is an Office Action. Otherwise, the transparency is gone, and the process is moot. I am very disappointed by your action against Eloquence, and it's nice to see it's already been undone, though by someone else. You blocked him for doing nothing wrong - since Office was not cited, there was no office action. No, Danny, we cannot assume that everything you do is office motivated. You are not above the process. --Golbez 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth do you think you are doing? What on earth do you think gives you the right to violate Wikipedia policy so flagrantly? I want you to unblock Erik Möller IMMEDIATELY YOU SEE THIS MESSAGE. I also want you to NEVER again do what you did to him.

You were acting in your capacity as a Wikipedia administrator so far as anyone knew. You said nothing about WP:OFFICE. Consequently your protection of the Newsmax and Christopher Ruddy articles was in violation of Wikipedia policy. I want this account of yours stripped of all its powers beyond that of a normal user. If you are going to act with those powers use your newly created Dannyisme account and make it clear that you are using the WP:OFFICE powers in the edit summary. Good grief you haven't even added the two articles in question to the relevant category!!

This has very badly shaken my faith in the Wikimedia Foundation's accountability. There are times when quick executive action must be taken but it is imperative when that action is taken that it is made clear that is what is happening. You did not do so in this case. David Newton 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe to edit?

Based on what happened to User:Eloquence and others, it seems that any action you take could be an "informal WP:OFFICE action", the undoing of which carries the penalty of a long-term block from Wikipedia. Is it safe to edit a page after you do, or do all such edits need to be cleared with you first? --Carnildo 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:HIRE and its AfD

Are you aware of this? If the office has an opinion it should weigh in. I don't think this should be allowed to proceed without careful consideration and Foundation approval. My own opinion is in the AfD. The scheme is not too far removed from letting folks put up Wikipedia pages offering used computers and cd's for sale. Wikipedia is not ebay. Certainly, the AfD process is just about the last way to decide something like this. Phr 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

WP:OFFICE seems to follow me around, I just rejected a speedy request on this page(didn't seem to meet CSD), and it has now been deleted. Anyway, you deleted the afd discussion for the page, and I was wondering if it might be appropriate to undelete the AfD discussion and close it as deleted as an Office action, as there are still red links in and it might confuse some people. Alternately, the red links could be deleted. Which should be done, or neither?

Prodego ^talk 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I was wondering why it was deleted? Verifiability? Ethical concerns? Thanks. --tomf688^{talk} 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So if a reputable source comes out with the name its OK to bring the article back? --tomf688 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We have a reputable, verifiable source now. Can we please have the WP:Office removed?

Suggestion Re: DannyIsMe Talk Page

I don't know if you check your DannyIsMe talk page for messages. If not, you may wish to leave notice of same there, or perhaps redirect it here. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth

(also left on your Dannyisme account -- not sure of appropriate place)

Could you please state on Talk:Wikitruth whether the placement of Wikitruth.Info on the spam blacklist, and forbidding Wikipedia editors to link to sites that redirect to Wikitruth.Info, is a Wikimedia Foundation-based action? Administrators currently acting on that page are stating that their edits are being motivated by consultation with Wikimedia Foundation counsel, but as far as respectfully differing editors are concerned, we believe that you are the sole Wikipedia admin authorized to make non-countermandable decisions based on foundation counsel's advice, yes? Your clarifying statements and/or edits would be appreciated there. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal

Please review 2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Publication_of_the_accuser.27s_identity and then please remove your block of the Crystal Gail Mangum article. Please just use your higher intellectual facilities for a few moments: The woman is a criminal and she is notable. Whether or not she was raped by those Duke students no longer matters. She is now part of History whether she likes it or not and there is nothing that you can do to protect her. The DA won is primary election and I think it is obvious that unless some miracle happens, all charges will be dropped. Again: it does not matter. Crystal Gail Mangum is an American criminal, she is notable and that is all it takes to get a bio page at Wikipedia. -- 71.6.14.2 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon user appears to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Amorrow. - Nunh-huh 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny: Do you have those higher facilities I previously mentioned? I expect that you do and that you can se that it does not matter if it was Amorrow or Nunh-huh or whomever wrote the above text. Your prior decision has been overtaken by events that neither Amorrow nor Nunh-huh had anything to do with and the place for Crystal Gail Mangum in History is now determined. She is toast. It is just a matter of time before you unblock the page. -- 71.6.14.2 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, while you are at it, would you please take a look at [45] and consider just unblocking the Peppers page also? The block you have on the page is, in my opinion, not an asset to Wikipeida. The page can be done in an appropriate way fo this American criminal also. Personally, I do not think that Wikipedia needs a copy of the photo for itself. In my opinion and as a matter of style, it is better to just guide the user to the definitive source of that image. In this particular case, several hundred words IS better than a picture. Wikpedia should help the reader to understand what they are look at when they go to the eSORN database just as if it were to provide a description of a classic painting. In case you think I am some kind of cruel guy, just take a look at Sam Sloan and Jefferson Poland. I like those people and I added Sam's criminal record to his page. He does not seem to mind and we are still friends. These online criminal databases are here to stay. If Wikipedia is NPOV, then all it can do is accomodate these new online databases and provide a well-organized and well-informed view into these resources. Or we can get all queasy and upset about them and stick our heads in the sand. Your choice. -- 71.6.14.2 11:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Danny. There seem to be a lot of strong emotions regarding the Crystal Gail Mangum page. Admitably, there was no reliable, reputable source which was printing her name. However, the defense lawyers have released her name now. It is reliable, it is reputable, and it meets all of the requirements of Wikipedia. It is unfair, and significantly biased to keep Crystal Gail Mangum locked while the David Forker Evans page is not.

Kola Boof article

Hi Danny,

Thanks for checking out the Kola Boof article. I understand that she might have concerns over what is in the article, but the way she seems to want the page to be is like a fluffy press release from her publisher's desk. Totally not NPOV. Also, how will this stuff be investigated? Take care. Shamrox 09:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Asking a favor...

I needed something done by an admin so I went to the List o' admins and arbitrarily chose you! I was wondering if you could roll back my monobook.js page so that all edits I made today (May 6) are deleted only showing the last April 27 version. This has happened before, where I go to add something, and then all the content doesn't work. Typical. Could you suggest a way for this to be prevented? Anyway, thanks in advance! → J@red  23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

Thanks! --evrik 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bodog

I commented on my talk page, but you should go back and unblank the Bodog article. The company obviously objectively deserves one. Even if it was reduced to about three paragraphs (the intro, the primary business, and the existence of secondary arms like music) it would fill the need of an article, and I'd be glad to change it (again... I've took a thousand pounds of spam out of that thing the past few months), but you need to unblank it otherwise I might end up getting blocked again. 2005 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

hello

i was wondering if i could have your input on this article?--64.12.116.131 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Sgrayban unblock

Greetings, Danny. I hope you've been well. The reason I am writing to you is because it has now come to my attention that you, and the foundation, were privy to the dispute involving User:Sgrayban. The user assures me that he does not intend to take legal action against Wikimedia, and that he will adhere to WP:NLT (among other applicable policies). The user has also withdrawn from the article/s in dispute. I'll write in greater detail on Brad Patrick's talk page and submitt the matter to your review. Sorry for the oversight, I simply missed Brad's notice. בברכה, El_C 04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did both of you seen the threatening comments this user continue to post on his talk page while he was blocked? This user has posted threatening comments on the Wikipedia namespace. What's going on here? Why is this user being unblocked? 172 | Talk 09:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Note the comments made by this user following his first indefinite block by James Forrester (including the ones oddly blanked by Master Jay [46]). I have little doubt that this guy's just here to be disruptive. (The overall weirdness of some of his threats against Adam and other editors are also worth noting.) 172 | Talk 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up; I thought 172 was in favour of the unblock. Not to mention Brad Patrick objects to it. The user is re-blocked and the matter is deffered to yourself and Brad. Sorry, everyone. I will try to be more careful in the future. El_C 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

David Shields

I see you blocked David Shields for "Sock of Perbanned User" see his talk page. He seems to think he is not the sock of perbanned user. ForestH2

Just to add a note, the user in question is an AOL user (blocked lots of other AOL users through autoblocks), so if checkuser was involved it might be unreliable... --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Doug Copp problems

There are some problems with the above article. I know that it is a contentious subject, so I have personally stayed out of making any major changes to it (I added some citeneed and an 'unreferenced' template). Now he is threating with legal action[47], and I do not know what to do. You have given me guidance in these kind of issues before, and I figured that I'd ask you for advice. I am on the road now and I will not be able to answer quickly over the next week. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured out how to sort it out through the admin noticeboard. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can we clear this up please

Hello, I am Juicifer, I have returned to wiki after a few months and got a new name after some unpleasant threats.

I would like to have my IP unblocked please. I would like you to explain why you are deleting the article on this guy without consensus. That Essjay now claims on the Protoz page that I am a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" is demonstrably false, as his his assertion that this has been checked with checkuser - if that is checked I can assure you that you will find that Essjay is in error (to be generous). I merely came to this article browsing through the Google news for wikipedia. When I found the page and history had been erased, despite a recent strong Keep AfD and no discussion on the talk page I became curious. Assuming good faith, I replaced the article based on the Google cache. I posted a plain query to you and another Admin who had deleted the article asking if there was a good reason. I was blocked (along with god knows how many other people on the same AOL IP.

So, after returning to wiki after a few a months it appears:

• a) A article has been repeatedly deleted against consensus by two admins, deleting the history and providing no explanation on the talk page.
• b) An apparent newby (me) on a generic AOL IP was given a complete ban on account of stalking User:Danny despite merely posing a comment on the talkpage to the effect that he should explain his actions or expect me to take the usual actions.
• c) I was falsely accused of being a sock-puppet.
• d) Most seriously, User:Essjay one of the 14 most senior administrators who are trusted with legally confidential information (subject to the 6 stated exceptions) has not only claimed that Protoz (me) is a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" but claims that this has been confirmed by the Checkuser tool. Either there has been some ridiculous coincidence and I really do share this AOL IP with "Israelberch", or Essjay found no evidence and (forgive me, WP:NPA and all that) decided to "economise on the truth" by saying that Checkuser confirmed what in fact it had excluded.

While d) is an inexcusable breach of trust and abuse of power, I am sure that c) is merely a misunderstanding.

As to a) and b). As I can ascertain, the deletion by User:Danny followed the publication by the article's subject of a critique of wikipedia, which is how I found this in google news. It makes wikipedia look very childish to then remove the article on him as a "punishment". Such authoritarian censorship is the exact opposite of what wikipedia is about.

P.S. It appears that User:Danny also unilaterally deleted the article on the organ that published the critical piece. What an embarrassment for wikipedia that it sunk to petty censorship.

User:Juicifer 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Joel Leyden and Israel News Agency

Was this an action as your role as an administrator or an agent of the Foundation? If it is the former I must protest and request that you undelete them and list them on AFD. Kotepho 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the RFC against him and various other things, such as some AN/I threads. He was disruptive, posted editor's personal information, has made legal threats, the list just goes on and on. It does not seem to correct to call him only a blogger that spams search engines though and I am not sure how his misbehavior results in the deletion of his article.

• Joel Leyden was behind netking.com Rovner, Sandy (1995-11-09). "Mourning by Modem for Rabin". The Washington Post. which has 16 mentions in newspapers including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The San Francisco Chronicle
• Taylor, Catherine (2002-04-23). "Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict - Older students in the West Bank headed back to school yesterday, to begin cleaning up battle damage". Christian Science Monitor. quotes him as a Captain and spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force
• Rover, Sandy (1996-03-07). "A Flash of Screwy Logic". The Washington Post. mentions his "internet consulting and advertising company" opening the Israeli Terror Victims Hotline page http://shani.net/terror which also has mentions in The Chicago Sun-Times and The Star Tribune
• Again quoted as a spokesman and captain for the IDF in Chivers, C.J. (2002-04-27). "Mideast Turmoil: Bethlehem - Israel's Threat of an Attack on a Church is Pulled Back". The New York Times.; Lev, Michael (2002-04-27). "Israelis hunt militants in new West Bank raid - Bush urges end to incursions". Chicago Tribune.; "Children to be released from Church of the Nativity". CNN. 2002-04-24.
• An article from The Register that mentions him and uses Israeli News Agency as a source

I, of course, do not have the full picture. Kotepho 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

JL

Could you post a note at Talk:Joel Leyden or WP:OFFICE or somewhere appropriate to clarify the exact status of the deleted article? I'm concerned that we might have a misunderstanding like a few weeks ago. Haukur 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also at Talk:Israel news agency and user:Israelbeach. I don't particularly want to touch these pages so that it doesn't seem like I am carrying out a personal vendetta. --woggly 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image from DYK

Hi Danny. I'm not contesting your removal of the image, but it was one of those times when leaving an edit summary would have helped a lot, so another admin could quickly move in and replace it (as well as unprotecting the image that came off). I've already done so, as I happened to have been watching the discussion on Talk:Main Page, and when I saw you edit the template I guessed what had happened. Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

It would be very helpful if you could provide some explanation for your recent removal of content from Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. I am not in any way disputing your right to remove the content, but since it was accurate and verifiable information it seems very likely that someone may in all innocence attempt to restore that content. I will gladly monitor the article to prevent any such restoration, but I would need to be able to provide a justification. If this was a WP:OFFICE action, then please so indicate. --MediaMangler 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I am in receipt of an email message purporting to be from you, although I question its provenance. It fails to address the central question of whether or not your edit was a WP:OFFICE action. Instead, it repeats a claim made by Jeff Merkey concerning a court order — a claim which has been fairly thoroughly discredited. Therefore, I suspect the message may have actually been written by Merkey or someone in his employ. Disregarding this possibly forged email, I respectfully request that you clearly and unambiguously indicate, either here or on the article's talk page, whether or not this edit was a WP:OFFICE action. If you state "This was a WP:OFFICE action and is not to be questioned" then I will of course comply. If this was not a WP:OFFICE action, then I intend to start a discussion on the article's talk page concerning whether or not the material belongs in the article and I will be guided by consensus opinion. --MediaMangler 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo in Norway

I need mail to the Swedish journalist who are comming to Bergen I am planning a meeting with the Press before the lecture. --Nina-no 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the 'pedia. Nice article! ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Translation

Hey, I've been working on the article Nativ, an Israeli govenment organization that helped Jews in the Soviet Union. I recently found what I believe is the group's seal, and have placed it at the top right of the article. I was wondering if you could translate what it says along the outside. Thanks! Joshdboz 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time

Mr. Wool: Thanks for your time. I can tell from comments like Kelly Martin's on wikien-l that you are quite busy protecting the Foundation from libel suits. Again, if you would look at the recent (last 12 hous) efforts to remove the Foundation's declarations of O.J. Simpson and Eric Foretich to be American criminals, it would be a good thing for the Foundation, especially in the light of Jimbo's recent statement of attitude and frustration. If you need to call me, my number is 650-799-8117. -- 71.139.199.74 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello from the Mediation Committee

Dear Mediators Emeriti: I'm writing to all former/inactive mediators (now called "Mediators Emeriti" to emphasize the ability of any mediator to return at will to active participation on the Committee), to encourage each of you to share your wisdom and experience on the Committee by commenting on requests by new individuals to join the Committee. There are five current requests to join the Mediation Committee: Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Master_of_Puppets Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Wisden17 Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Journalist Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Cadr Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#.5Edemon The current Committee respects and appreciates the time you spent on the Committee, and the insight you can provide, and encourages you to take part in these discussions. Additionally, any mediator emeritus who has the time and would like to return to active mediation would be welcomed with great enthusiasm. Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (I recognize that many of you left the Committee to go on to other responsibilities, particularly Arbitration and the Board, but we still welcome your input on new committee members and encourage your participation. Please don't feel guilty if you cannot participate; we just want to remind everyone that they are welcome to do so.)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hi Danny: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny. Perhaps you could help with a POV-pusher over on the Adjara article. He continues to vandalize the page, removing the Adjarian flag and adding a nonsense to the article. I've done a lot to improve this article and I'm inclined to elevate it a good article status. Thanks in advance, Kober 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple request...

Danny, I perused the Wikimedia Foundation's website, but couldn't quite find what I was looking for. Would you mind emailing me (or on my talk page) some of the non-profit information about the Foundation? I only briefly peeked around, and I probably missed a glaring sign to it (and if that's the case a simple link would work), but was unable to find anything solid. If you need any further information, just let me know. Thanks for your help. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force and fairuse

Greetings, Danny, I hope you've been well. I am writing to you because I need your help in persuading Carnildo of the fair use merit of Image:IAF.jpg. I wish to limit any direct communication with him for obvious reasons. Incidentally, last week I've translated the vast majority of articles (30+) on Template:Israel Defense Forces. Have a look at my translations if you get a chance. ,בברכה El_C 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a pretty blatent violation of point #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Carnildo 07:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The IDF is pretty blatant on allowing fair use usage: The user may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under the law. El_C 07:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really quite irrelevant. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on fair use: Wikipedia:Fair use. In particular, note point #1 of the fair-use criteria: "No free equivalent is available or could be created". The image in question fails that. --Carnildo 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of a free equivalent or how to create the info contained therein in that specific format (of the command structure). El_C 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There's this thing called a "paint program". It lets you do things like draw lines, boxes, and text. If you want to be fancier, there are things called "charting programs" that let you create arbitrary flowcharts, where the program will take care of all the lines and boxes for you. There are even dedicated programs for creating organizational flowcharts. --Carnildo 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I only know how to write, I had no idea any of these things were possible, especially the "paint program" part. El_C 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw the comments here and created Image:IAF.png. Raul654 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Danny, given the history between us, I'm not sure where you get off asking me for anything at all.

Having said that, yes, I will make the Tswana logo in the next few days, not because you asked, but because of a request I received from a Tswana Wikipedian. --Node 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

in re Fritz Klein

wanted to explain . . . where you previously removed a link with the comment easier to give an external link than to write an article, not being lazy, merely terrorized by the sweeps of articles being done by User:Aaron Brenneman, et. al. In the meantime, topic Klein Sexual Orientation Grid is marked as needing article written. CyntWorkStuff 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Albertsons

Hello Danny! I noticed you recently removed the office tag from the article, and took it off the list of office protected pages, but you did not unprotect the page. I assume you just forgot to, but I wanted to ask to make sure, rather then unprotecting it myself. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehh it is easy to mess up, like try to do this properly. It took me 3 or 4 tries. ;-) I notice you do not have the new "Oversight" privilege, which allows you to remove edits directly from the database. This might be useful for office actions. Note though that only a developer can undo it and it should be used extremely carefully. Unless you deliberately don't have it, you might want to give it to yourself. It would mainly be used to remove private info (which I do a lot of, so it is too bad I can't use it) so it could be used on some pages which you do not even want admins to see the deleted edits. Happy officing and editing! Prodego ^talk 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disturbing

Is there anything we can do about Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Sex? The user purports to not be trolling. If so, I think it's within our civic duty to let the appropriate authorities know about this potential abuse situation. We can at least contact the ISP. Can you do this? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum office protection

When you protected this page, you mentioned on my user page that "we should wait for the name to be released before deciding how important it is". There have been requests that this page's office protection status be removed because official documents bearing her name have been released. Please see the talk page about Mangum for discussion and a link to the documents. Thank you. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny. Just wanted to say thanks for all the good work you've done for this site. We'd really appreciate it if you could remove the WP:Office for the Crystal Gail Mangum page. Her name has been publicly released by a reliable, reputable source. There are pages available for the alleged criminals, but the page for the alleged victim has been locked out. Seems a little biased. Let us know if theres anything we can do to assist you. Again, thanks for the great work.

Danny, any updates on the Crystal Gail Mangum? Wassup? --Robertkeller 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Judaism

I hope you are well. It seem like you have laid low from Jewish topics for a while, but if you have the time and will, perhaps you would have a constructive comment here [48] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

concern for user's mental health

We are concerned that the user who posted this might attempt to harm himself. We are discussing the issue on User_talk:Batamtig

Please advise. Ideogram 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect Crystal Gail Mangum already!

People have been asking you to unprotect this article for over a week now\, please bring back the open nature of Wikipedia. Thanks. RFerreira 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hunger Project

A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement that has been placed on this entry. Anything you can do to expedite its handling will be much appreciated.

• RE: above: A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement ... This is clearly the POV of the previous user. All statements have been properly sourced and referenced with endnotes, from a source (NOT Mother Jones) that duly published said statements in reference to a different article. A NOTE was placed before the reference to alert the reader to its integrity:

  NOTE: Sourced quote from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, the Center for Investigative Reporting

  . The Center for Investigative Reporting is a reputable source. There have been no lawsuits against above source for statements within its work, which comment on other sources that were reprinted properly with permission.Smeelgova 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny, I have been advising Jcoonrod in my role as an advocate. I see that upon receiving communtication from him you did attempt to edit the Hunger Project article. I do not know if you are aware but User:Smeelgova has effectively now reverted all of your edits. Would using WP:OFFICE be the best option, I understand your reluctance to use such measures too frequently, however if you try to simply apply changes on this account it appears Smeelgova will revert them? --Wisden17 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova is on thin ice, especially with a Mediation pending.--BradPatrick 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the issues at hand, however I am not very familiar with the WP:OFFICE policy. Please explain why I am on "thin ice", even though I have cited references and sources for the aforementioned quotations?Smeelgova 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to respond to this given my role, but I can tell you that the pattern of editing that you have engaged in over the past month, with your selection of articles, POV (in my estimation) and tendency to edit in only a very narrow area warrant very careful evaluation of exactly what it is you are doing. I just took a look at the page you put together on Harry Margolis and your choice of supposedly "relevant" legal items, and I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe. I believe you are going to be called out for your viewpoint. You might want to ask yourself if, as the userpage of User:Essjay asks, with every click of the "save page" button you are making Wikipedia a better place. Are you?--BradPatrick 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please define, "better place". If by "better place" we mean the truth, then that is one story. But if by "better place" we simply mean to avoid any sort of confrontational controversial issue, than Wikipedia would quickly begin to reflect a certain type of POV. As to the particular article you cited, this was a major battle within this individual's life, where he was indicted by the federal government on 23 counts. Granted I am not an attorney, but it does seem relevant. My motivation here is to compile information otherwise not readily accessible to the public, from reputable sources. However, if I am beginning to be threatened from all fronts, with no Wikipedia advocate or support of my own, than I will have no choice but to cease and desist. I must say that I am surprised at these actions from devoted Wikipedia members, I had thought that in an encyclopedia as comprehensive as this, users would wish to see all of the history for an article, positive and negative, controversial or not, as long as it is factual and accurate, and cited.Smeelgova 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have reverted to prior version by user User:Danny , pending mediation.Smeelgova 00:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This will blow you away

I just found this out now. Can you believe that we have had a User:General Tojo since April 2006?(!) What is happening to this place, Danny? El_C 11:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Simone page

Please do not revert my edits without comment. There's more explanation for the article reversions on the Talk Page. Here is what has been going on the article page: Several anon editors with extensive vandalism histories (152.163.100.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.12.116.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) (among others) have tried to turn the Mark Simone page into an extensive PR campaign for the article subject. I've removed the PR/Press Release info, explained the reasons why in the Talk Page and article summaries, and the vandals are reverting at will. The same vandals are blanking the Talk page, which is clear vandalism. Judging by their own Talk pages, they have a history of ignoring vandalism warnings. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. Thanks for your reply. I've emailed you, as requested. Eleemosynary 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Danny! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles Phelps Taft II

Thank you for your recent contribution to Charles Phelps Taft II. Keep up the good work --TommyBoy 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LCD Delist

Hi, could I possibly trouble you to weigh in on this? An image has been promoted to featured picture status which uses a portion of the Wikipedia logo. It is my contention that because it does and because copyright extends to derivative works, this cannot be a free use image (one of the requirements for being a featured picture). Since you are working in the Wikimedia Foundation office, I was hoping you might be able to give us an official view. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Crosstar

Danny, can you fill us in on the latest regarding the Crosstar logo? This has gone back and forth several times, Barrett has posted DMCA requests before, but nothing has come of them. -Will Beback 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this may have been forgotten, but the logo was first uploaded by Barrett, its owner. -Will Beback 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

21:14, July 9, 2005 Crosstar uploaded "Image:Crosstar.jpeg" (Copyright (C) 2005 The Nationalist Movement, PO Box 2000, Learned MS 39154 USA. Permission is granted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licensed image, but changing it is not allowed. )[49]

PS: If you want a laugh, check out Barret's take on the matter: "Largest Florida law-firm humbled by Nationalists". His other previous posts on the topic are even funnier. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

HRE's RFA

I will stop reverting, I know about the 3RR. However, I've been told that you've said te RFA is to be stopped. However, your post to me seems to suggest that it may continue, albeit at a later time. Could you clarify this? NSLE 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a suggestion, and I think it's worthy of implementation, to blank to Office-protected RfA page out of respect for HRE's memory, if he is indeed dead, given all the oppposes etc. Would you please do it, or give me permission to? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be the time to reopen this RFA, since HRE is back, see User:HRE. --Dijxtra 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency, again

I notice you recently deleted Israel News Agency, even though Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency had previously concluded that we should, in spite of the nonsense surrounding it, try to retain a neutral article on the subject. I'd like to know if you had a reason for the deletion other than your personal opinion as to the article's encyclopedicness? I've been keeping the article on my watchlist since the DRV debate, and it would seem to me that the article, though admittedly a stub, has nonetheless remained fairly neutral and compliant to Wikipedia policies. Admittedly, it had been deteriorating again lately, but this could have been fixed simply by reverting to, say, the version as of 8 June. Perhaps I have a masochistic streak, but I don't feel that we should delete an article on an otherwise acceptable topic merely because the subject of the article has a chip on their shoulder against Wikipedia; such could be grounds for protecting an article, or at least for watching it closely, but not for deletion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. A restoration, re-write, and a little oversight (watchlisting) could fix it.Voice-of-All 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point about the Hebrew Wikipedia not having an article about the INA. Of course, we do have about a hundred times more articles than they do, so our coverage of obscure web sites can be expected to be better. Still, it's a good argument.

I suppose this will end up back on Deletion review next, though I'm starting to doubt if that'll accomplish anything useful. What I'd really like to do is create a protected stub on it in userspace, with nothing but verifiable facts from independent sources, then move it to mainspace and immediately AfD it to see if there's enough of those to justify keeping it. I just don't know if that's possible at this point without someone immediately applying a broad interpretation of CSD G4 to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

10:33, 6 July 2006 Danny (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Israel News Agency" (this is tiresome)

This is pretty thin gruel. If you've got reasons for things, explain them eh? I've left cryptic summaried before, but this is something that has been though the wringer a few times and could have used a slightly more refined approach, don't you think? You could have nominated it for AfD with a well-reasoned nomination. That "broken" afd provided you with tonnnes of amunition, not to mention demonstrating that there was not community consesnsus for speedy deletion. It's hard to kill things dead when you cut corners, mate. A nice clean reasonable AfD would have been the best way to go.
brenneman ^{L} 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny, the following have been identifiewd as possible socks of Israelbeach:

• Bonnieisrael (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Specops (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Israelimp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (blocked)
• Cymruisrael (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm told you might have some insight here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Goering in Nuremberg.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goering in Nuremberg.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 05:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny, request for contact

Danny, I was referred to you by another user for help on something. Can you email me thru my talk page so as we can discuss the issue offline. ThanksDroliver 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

reqest for mediation

Please I need help. I need mediation in a discussion about the article Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a document called Declaration of facts in wich the JW assosiation 1n 1933 explains to Hitler its position in favour of the regime and the regime Ideals. This try of the JW assosiation did not succeeded and Hitler continued is persecution vs JW. They want to hide the document and want to give the document a different explanation because it is a bothering truth in JW history. But the document speaks by itself. Please I would like mediation. They do not correct our work they simply delete it, most of the time without any explanation in the discussion. Need mediation --Truthwanted 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson vuong

Hi there: this article, which I tagged and you deleted, appears to have been written, as have two other deleted articles this evening, by User:Tony Sidaway. I do not know him at all, but his userpage is not the page of a vandal. Do you think he has been cloned?--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there: as you know, I did not accuse him of writing the three articles I was concerned about, but was concerned in case a fake Tony had done so. I am relieved that this is not so.--Anthony.bradbury 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

English Pointer

Why did you move the English Pointer to Pointer (dog breed)? The name English Pointer is often used to avoid confusion with the Pointer (dog) type and other breeds of pointer, and is, well, less confusing. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden

In which sense this person fails the notability criteria on wikipedia? Would it be ok if someone recreated the article under for instance Leyden, Joel? Azmoc 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do that and it will be nuked from orbit. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Musa Cooper

Hi. An article that you recently deleted is been discussed in a deletion review. Just thought you should know. Cheers TigerShark 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2

You closed Sean Black's request to be resysoped as successful despite what appears to be about 72% support. My understanding was that RfA's with between 50 and 75% support were regularly closed as no consensus. On the other hand, Bureaucrats do (and should) have some leeway in determining whether oppose (or support) "votes" are legitamate and in good faith. Are there any special circumstances that support considering this to have passed with less than the normal level of consenus? Obviously I am biased in that I "voted" oppose with what I thought was a legitimate concern about civility, but I am actually as intersted in the process question as in the resolution of the RfA itself. Eluchil404 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA is not a vote, that's really all there is to it. It's a discussion trying to find out if someone would make a good administrator. Since Sean Black already was a good administrator for many months and no one was able to bring up even a single example of abuse of tools as an oppose reason, his position was restored. --Cyde↔Weys 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were going to have him back anyway, you should have never let the RfA proceed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people trust Sean Black and want to give him his bit back. What's the problem? Why are you being so mean to the bureaucrat who made the final decision? --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, will you stop pretending that this is about Sean Black for a minute? This is about process and the future of Wikipedia. Sean merely had the misfortune of being caught up in the middle of it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuck process. Of course it's about Sean. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's "Requests for adminship", and is a way of selecting people suitable to be administrators. Sean is obviously suitable; he started with a tail wind. If the process in your opinion shouldn't promote him, then the process is obviously wrong. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think my point is clear. Just let Danny comment on it when he gets back. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am answering here, because I think this answer is more than just to Samsara. I saw the vote, and it was close. I saw the reasoning, and responded with my discretion. Had Sean received fifty percent, or was there a clear indication that he was not trusted for a valid reason, I would have acted differently. As for this being about the future of Wikipedia, as you commented to Tony above, that is pure histrionics. I doubt there is anyone who has participated in this entire discussion who is more concerned with the "future of Wikipedia" than me. I have been around longer than anyone involved in this, I have held virtually every position you can imagine, I have raised more money for the foundation than anyone, and I am a paid employee of the foundation who gave up a job in New York to do this full time, only to come home and do it some more at night and on the weekend. Don't tell me that I am threatening the future of Wikipedia. I would be far more concerned about people who are turning RfA into a personal attack-fest and who have made it impossible for almost anyone who has done anything (and I dont count 1000 edits to fancruft as anything) to win even a modicum of support and trust. In fact, people are often afraid to do what is right because of this false notion of kowtowing to mob rule and the dictates of whoever whines loudest. Danny 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2. Just thought I would let you know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I need your help on IRC asap regarding the incident with the off-wiki actions. Thanks. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar For helping me with some "problem" users on IRC Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant (Talk) 11:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Graal unixmad wants to discuss his/her block

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that Graal unixmad (talk · contribs) apparently wants to discuss his/her recent block with you. Of course s/he can't discuss it here so I'm passing on the message in case you want to go to his/her talk page. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Colorblind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edits. Potters house 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Urgent

Can you possibly quickly answer to my IRC comment - I need to discuss with you something before I get to bed (its 00:00+ in Aus). Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian state stub templates

Please comment at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Cat:Sikkim_geography_stubs. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

Again, I request you act upon, or at least read, the email I sent you regarding a blatant and serious violation of policy. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked by GraalOnline

Hi, I was wondering why Graal unixmad has been unblocked, as I am still banned from the game. While he may claim that I am not banned for a reason related to Wikipedia, the timing of the ban clearly suggests otherwise. Di4gram 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution Sought

Greetings! See here: [50] where it has been suggested by the admin that I refer to you to possibly facilitate a resolution of a particular long-standing thorn on my side, which has been a disruptive influence in my editing of this otherwise fine project that I admire. Specifically, false charges of socket-puppetry, which I can prove are false.

Close to when I first joined Wikipedia, over to 8 months ago, I was accused of this. Since then it has increased but based on speculations, stemming from these first confirmed "puppets" of mine by user check (others checked at the same time were shown not to be connected to me, but yet remain 'suspected." Central to this is the fact that I've editing in controversial articles where people react rather strongly to lines of argument that easily offend sensibilities, and I was targeted by some of the more fanatical conservative religious editors, who jumped on these revelations of my having confirmed socket-puppets with great glee--having been in constant content dispute with them. They are the same ones behind the constant accusations and harassing labels, and provocations. I offered my explanations, but they fell on deaf ears. These include admins close to the editors who describe me as their "enemy" and have established connections/friends which who do have the effect of driving away editors of my POV. But I digress--I don't want to get off topic with these talks of cabals, etc--as you've heard them before and they are nothing new, nor particularly interesting.

This issue is about 2 confirmed so-called socket puppets. As I've maintained it is none other than my wife, and that the other guy was a friend at whose house I was visiting. User: BelindaGong is the user name and that is her real name: Belinda Gong. She is my wife. She is no longer allowed to edit because they say she is not a real person, but my socket puppet. Likewise with user: Freethinker; he is my friend, and I was at his house and I introduced him to WP. His is also a real, distinct person. I can prove both. No one has been interested because it is these confirmed puppets, which are used to fuel speculation that other users are my puppets, too. They are not. Some act like them, yes, but I strongly suspect they are created for that very purpose to then use to attack me with the allegations. Every month it seems they add new users to this list. Recently, having ignored their harassing efforts, they have now restored to sticking an insulting label on my user page, saying I have "confirmed abusive socket puppets.' Spoke to an admin that such a label is false and he edited it to remove the "confirmed,' and removed the "abusive"--since those things are certainly not true. They have never been abusive. Neither have I. I would like to know if you could help? Is there is a way for me to clear my name with regard to these two confirmed 'socket-puppets" so my wife, BelindaGong can once again edit here and be counted as a separate person? Likewise with Freethinker? ISP's can be checked, drivers licenses can be faxed, scanned, e-mailed, etc. The real goal, however, is to clear my name, and remove that rather insulting label from my main user page as it poisons the well against me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.Giovanni33 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was the user who resolved the dispute (with the modified template). I notice that Gio has said that "Spoke to an admin" - just so you don't think I'm impersonating an admin now (:p), I think Gio mistook me for a sysop. Just to clear it up and aviod confusion. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Danny. I am one of the administrators involved in this case. I have also been, as editor, in content dispute with Giovanni. It is true that some Christian editors have been offended by his long talk page posts saying that being a Christian was like believing that the moon was made of cheese, or that the only reason for suppressing his edit about the Eucharist having evolved from pagan cannibalistic rites is that "Christians don't like to talk about their origins. hehe." — and have resisted his efforts to insert that Hitler was a devout Christian, or that Chrisianity was a "self-professed" monotheistic religion centred on "stories" about Jesus, or that Galileo was tortured (which is flatly contradicted by Encyclopedia Britannica and all modern reputable sources). However, his sockpuppetry has been accepted by administrators who are not members of what Giovanni calls "the Christian cabal". I would refer you in particular to posts about him from the following three checkuser admins: David Gerard, Rebecca, and Jayjg.[51], [52], and [53]. Other administrators who believe that Giovanni33 has engaged in sockpuppetry include (but are not limited to) Tom harrison, Proto, SlimVirgin, KillerChihuahua, Guettarda, Jossi, Wikibofh, MONGO, Deskana, and FeloniousMonk.

Giovanni33 arrived at Wikipedia in January, and engaged in massive edit warring at the Christianity article. His original violations were not reported, as he was new, but he was given numerous warnings (from 16 January) and told of the rule, yet continued to violate it. These violations could not possibly be accidents, as they frequently happened after he was told how many times he had reverted. On one occasion he even reverted eleven times within nineteen hours, and even for that he was not reported.[[54] When he ran into opposition, and had been sent a warning that he had reached his maximum reverts (at 12:28 on 23 January) the BelindaGong account turned up twenty-three minutes later and started off (from an IP) by saying: "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page.[55] Then that account came to the talk page and supported Giovanni[56] and reverted to his version again.[57] Then the account was registered as BelindaGong, who promptly reverted again[58] (making a total of five reverts in just over four hours, and then started following Giovanni around to other pages, reverting for him, and voting for what he wanted[59] [60] [61] while they both pretended not to know each other. After the checkuser results came out, he said she was his wife.

The Freethinker99 account turned up while Giovanni was blocked for using puppetry to evade 3RR, and said he was new but had read the Christianity talk page and agreed with Giovanni, then reverted back to Giovanni. Giovanni, at that time, was able to edit his own talk page, but nowhere else. He was asked on his talk page (while the Freethinker99 account was supporting him and reverting for him) if he had any connection to any of these new users who supported him, and he replied, "I'll . . . state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past." [62] He then realized that he had made that reply while logged on as Freethinker, so he hastily changed the signature.[63] The Freethinker account then made an edit to Giovanni's talk page that seemed rather irrelevant to the conversation that was taking place,[64] and led to the theory that it was a hasty post made for the purpose of being able to account for his name showing in the history. (Many Wikipedians check talk page entries by using the radio buttons to see the difference between the last version that they saw and the most recent one, rather than going through each edit, diff by diff, and nobody would wonder why a name appeared twice in the history for only one post, as people go back to add a signature or fix typos.) Anyway, it was too late: we had already seen it. Giovanni said he knew Freethinker and was at his house, showing him how to use Wikipedia (i.e. revert to his version). He said that he hadn't seen the name Freethinker when he answered the question, as it had been added to the original question.[65] [66] [67] However, it had been there for fifty minutes when he denied it, and the "And Freethinker99" would have been DIRECTLY above the first words of his denial that he was typing. The whole issue is discussed here.

Giovanni is mistaken in thinking that the reason BelindaGong is not allowed to edit is because we think she's not a real person. It's quite possible that Giovanni can produce evidence that he's married to someone called BelindaGong. He was told, from the very start, about the WP:SOCK policy, and was urged to read it. The issue of meatpuppetry was also explained to him, and the difference between spouses and partners under the same roof being welcomed by Wikipedia (Angela and Tim Starling, Mindspillage and Gmaxwell, Jdavidb and Carradee) and "getting a friend or family member to join" in order to give you support. While he was carrying on his pretence of not being connected to BelindaGong, he even posted to another admin that I was a possible meatpuppet for Str1977. (By the way, my last thousand article edits show three reverts to Str1977's preference, and that doesn't include my contributions on project space which Str1977 doesn't come near. The proportion of reverts to Str1977 would, I admit, have been higher before Giovanni was told — by an admin who was unblocking him — to stay away from the Christianity articles, but even then, it would always be easy to find 100 consecutive edits that had nothing to do with articles that Str1977 edits. We have completely distinctive editing histories, with some overlap on Christianity-related subjects.)

Since Giovanni was originally caught out, no user check has found him to be editing from the same account as anyone else, but that would be unlikely, as he now knows about user checks. Every suspected puppets who ever made an edit while logged off was in the same area as Giovanni. (I have IP addresses for seven of the ten suspected puppets.) They behave in the same way, and show strong linguistic similarities. The strongest linguistic matches to Giovanni are HK30 and Professor33. Many of HK30's contributions have been deleted from the history of pages, as he posted links to a website that supports Giovanni and that published personal information about Wikipedians — including a photo and the real name of KHM03, which he had never provided himself. KHM03 left Wikipedia as a result, after his superior was sent an anonymous letter, connected with this issue, and after he himself received creepy messages on his talk page (now deleted), naming his wife and children. I have been in touch with bureaucrats and ArbCom members about this evidence. Obviously, I don't want to draw attention in public to particular linguistic idiosyncrasies, as it would simply alert Giovanni to things he should avoid with future puppets. However, they have been noticed by many people, and I am willing to send you the evidence by private e-mail if you would like. There is also the editing pattern. It is clear that these accounts exist(ed) for the purpose of supporting the Giovanni33 account. Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 article edits. His seventh edit was to vote for something that Giovanni wanted, on a page that he's unlikely as a newcomer to have found by himself (since it wasn't being discussed at the page where he was, and since there was no message to his talk page about it, and his e-mail not enabled). MikaM is almost exactly the same. That account has 32 reverts to Giovanni out of 42 article edits, and sixth edit was to vote for Giovanni's cannibalism version at the Transubstantiation talk page, without e-mail enabled, without a user talk page message, and without reference to that article on any of the pages where that account had started. Both accounts have followed Giovanni to Hitler, God (inserting links to a "create-your-own-God-it's-fast-easy-and-fun" website that Giovanni was trying, despite considerable opposition, to insert), and other articles. They both edit from the same area as Giovanni, and have shown some of the linguistic similarities that I'm happy to e-mail you about.

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to add that I do not believe that Giovanni33 was involved in the setting up of the stalking website that I mentioned. I won't name it, as it makes it easy for other people to look it up, and it has been added to the spam filter. KHM03 was very upset about it. Regards. AnnH ♫ 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't respond to this in detail or in full, unless you ask me specific questions about any of the above claims made by MusicalLinguist (been there, done that), except to say that about 10% of what she says is true in the way she says it, the other 90% is selective, reported with extreme bias, with an interpretations that exaggerates and distorts facts and their meanings. For every admin who she cites, there are other admins and editors, who reviewed all the evidence (primary and secondary), and were not convinced, did not believe it made a strong case, and in some cases that an apology should be issued. Others, while supporting her overall admitted that the evidence was actually "nothing earth shattering." Thus, ML's selection here is selective cherry picking. But Wikipedia is not a democracy; a poll about who likes me and who doesn't is the best way to proceed. I find that there is a direct correlation to those who are edit warriors offended by my sound arguments in article talk pages, my user of sources to win arguments, and their tenacity with regard to attacking me with this issue.

I will mention just a few facts to consider. ML's asserts that these users are from my area. That would be quite interesting and compelling evidence, if true. However, she avoids providing evidence to support this claim. Infact, the one user who is connected to me, in reality, my wife Belinda Gong, was someone who ML's investigated after obtaining her IP address and concluded that she doubts its me because Belinda Gong was editing from another area of the country, far away from me. FALSE! She was ALWAYS editing from my house (or work which is close by)! This goes to prove that ML does not know what she is talking about when she makes claims. But she makes false claims, both out of ignorance, and out deception.

For example she repeats that I asserted that Galileo was tortured, as if that is my belief and position I edit warred over. Not true. Infact that was a typo ONE TIME when I was paraphrasing a source that was referring to another source which made the argument that his treatment was paramount to torture (the way he was treated, humiliated, make to disavow his own teachings as false, threatened with tortured instruments, put under house arrest). The source I quoted was in error in the way it characterized what the other source said. I went to the original source and explained what had happened, that one time I entered in something in an article, which proved not to be accurate. I am gladly corrected! I fixed that right away and there was no conflict about it. We all make mistakes. However, ML will still go around saying that this is something I'm pushing, when my edits are 99% of the time carefully checked for accuracy, and at all times insist Wikipedia abides by the NPOV policy, in particular to fix systematic bias. Christianity is based on the stories of the gospels. This is not me saying this, its me referring to what NT scholars are saying, which I've quoted who are also Christians themselves. Yet, ML is highly offended by the suggestion that they are “stories,” and thinks it is "extreme." The moon made of cheese example was on a slightly different issue regarding an argument about the meaning of faith, believes strongly held not only without evidence but in opposition to all known evidence. For example the belief that ML has that the win literally really turns into blood. This is fine and I respect her right to believe this but it is a matter of faith shown not to be true according to standards of science. It is akin to the moon being made of cheese. Science and prove it is not make of cheese in the same way.. Yet accuses me of being "Anti-Christian” and finds the rather rationalist position “extreme.” True, I'm anti-superstition, and I respect the right to believe, just not to place their beliefs as facts, when they are not facts. NPOV policy is my goal--nothing more, nothing less. There may be dispute about what this means and how best to represent it but this is healthy differences that lead to overall better quality given an adherence to WP's sound policies designed for bring about exactly the kind of articles I think are required. I think Wikipedia should tick with a secular presentation, which is not easy with Christian articles dominated by Christians who feel that their faith is the only truth and is under attack. Still, I've done very well, despite having my contributions reverted back to a stub, and sometimes having my material reverted to that of a strict biblical account only. For examples see the current sorry state of Early Christianity, as an example. Issue relating to origins, influenced (from Greek Philosophy) and other pre-Christian religions are suppressed, but in the main article I've been able to win over consensus and get this as part of the article over months of debates. This is really at the heart of my offence. Its the crime of having the audacity to make the arguments I have and win to change over the content; it's my role as acting as a check and balance for NPOV on such articles. This is why I'm hounded as I am.

Now back to some other facts relating to deception presented by ML. She has paints a picture of me being caught using socket-puppets and this is why now I know better and I'm not caught. She fails to mention an important fact here, which I've and others pointed out before: these other users (most of them) were user checked at the same time I was caught. So her argument does not logically follow per the historical timetable. It begs the question of why, if they were my puppets, was there no connection found at the same time that a connection was found from the other account? Should they not have suffered all the same fate? Why would I use different methods of puppetry at the same time? Also, why would some of these alleged puppets of mine be shown to have their own puppets? If I knew how to avoid user check detection then why were they not able to avoid detection of their own puppets--and why still no connection to me? Also, consider the timing of the usage of these accounts. ML has argued that I am just using a work computer, yet she makes these arguments knowing that these other users have edited at the very same time I have. In fact there was an edit war going on at the very time with one of these alleged socket puppets while I was chatting in IRC with a mediator, with who was making these accusations, while I was blocked, and yet this user was editing at the while I chatting on IRC the editor who was accusing me of being the same person with me on IRC--while I was blocked. No explanation was given except I am probably at Starbucks with two laptops. I then volunteered to turn on my webcam to prove I was at home, on my bed! It was fortunate as it provides evidence in my favor. I asked the mediator to document this on my user page and she has done so, stating, " I'd be disinclined to believe he is any of these socks… I don't think Giovanni33 is a problem user or troll or destructive to the project. He may cause friction, and he may get himself blocked for 3RR often, but I don't think he's trying to disrupt. As such, I don't think he deserves this amount of flak for what he does. --Keitei (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)” When presented with such evidence the best that my detractors have done is to say “then it must be a meat-puppet” of your and you are getting him to do with you want him to do. It is really believable I have so such influence over so many others who I am able to control in such a manner? I admit some of the users appear to act like puppets. But this is not something I can be blamed for. I have a strong suspision that they may likely be created to act like my puppet so as to further the attacks and harrassment directed at me. Despite the claims of them being in my area, I suspect they may actually be closer to my detractors area. The other defense given when I am able to prove im innocent of specifc charges of puppetry, though arguments showing a complete lack of any basis whatsowever, ML gives her POV on justice by saying that I would still deseve to be punished even I were innocent. For example, she states her view that I deserve to be punished even I may be innocent! She she writes to Str1977, discussing how I may be innocent, however: "If a little boy steals apples from his neighbour's garden, and then his mother, not knowing that, punishes him for stealing biscuits from the pantry, when it was his sister who took the biscuits, he has still deserved the punishment.…” I beg to differ. I do not deserve ‘punishment” for things I did not do.

ML says that I’ve accused her of meatpuppetry with Str1977. No, I didn’t. I merely pointed out that she herself joked that they are meatpuppets with each other. Their words, not mine. Its true one is an admin the other isn’t so they do different things in WP. They are after all different people. But they share the same ideological POV, and this is reflected in that anytime Str1977 is in an edit conflict she wil come to his aid and revert to his version, even without talk page or understanding the arguments: if he supports it, she will. This has been the patttern. Then she joked about being his meatpuppet. I pointed this out that is similar to how some of my alleged “puppets” have acted in the past. She says that Freethinker, is my meatpuppet and therefore banned. He actually reverted to not my version but a compromised version. Being naïve I thought he would be welcomed and he thought he would be a peacemaker. Yet, a newbie who I introduced was to be banned since I introduced him and therefore it makes him my “meatpuppet” because he shares my POV. But, I found out that ML herself was introduced to Wikipeadia similiarly. She wrote: "Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Wikipedia. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Wikipedia...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"

Personally I don't think its wrong to invite others who agree with you, as long as they are real people and they follow the rules. What is wrong is when others are attacked for their Pov (even if this motivation is hidden).

For the record and to clear up the issue with Freethinker, the record will show that he is a friend at whose house I was when I was blocked because BelingGong (my wife, not a puppet) was revealed by user check to be my ‘puppet” so she was banned and I was blocked. Nevermind she is my wife, she edited at different articles that I never touched, even did a rather good overhaul of a whole article and was thanked by other editors for her good work. She was banned. Now, like Freethinker, she does not think highly of WP. Since I was at Freethinkers house, I used his computer to resond to a question on my talk page. While blocked I know I am only allowed to edit on my own talk page, so I careful to do just that. I responded to a question but was my friend was still signed in. I corrected that and gave an honest explanation of what happened. My explanation fits the facts peferctly. There is a good reason why we have a policy of assuming good faith. When there are multiple possible interpreations we should assume good faith, not the worst possible bad faith interpration as ML/AnnH does in her inquisitorial withch hunt of those who she perecieves to have an “anti-Christian” purpose on Wikipedia. Recently she perm banned a user that appears to be a socketpuppet of Professor33, who I'm accused of being. She only crime? Making good argumets on the talk page. Not that i've ever used sockepuppets, but I thought they were legal and ok to be used provided they are not used to violate the 3RR or fake consensus? All this guy did was, in the abasense of me or the Professor, simple support a POV of another user on the talk page that was contrary to their POV. In any objective asseseement his presence on WP (NeoOne) was very beneficial. Yet he was banned. This is evidence about what master is really being served by these actions--its not what is best for WP.

Unlike many other editors with my POV who now quite in protest over this type of which-hunt, wiki-stalking, and general unfair bullying, I am releliant and feel the value of WP is worth dealing with the inevitable wiki-stress that comes with ideological confict and human error. So, despite its problems, I do not give up and run away. Everhything is political, but I think that fair minded people can reasonably decern justice free from prejudice by looking at the facts in an open minded with given a true sharged goal: what is best for WP. Again, I can answer any questions and provide support to vouch for the accuracy and honesty of any statments I have made now or in the past. All I ask is to let the facts stand and let determinations be made on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of prejudiced, negative speculations that lack good faith. I would like Beling Gong to be allowed to edit again free from being accused of being a socket-puppet. I'd like to offer the same to Freethinker. Having proven they are not my socketpuppets despite the usercheck results, I'd like the label on my user page removed.Giovanni33 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of some of the places where this case has been discussed. I'll post it now, and add further details later.

• AN Archive 31 Request for help
• ANI Archive 81 Another request for help. Also continued in section below the one linked to
• AN Archive 50 Discussion of Professor33 sockpuppet block
• Rebecca's comments to FeloniousMonk about Giovanni33
• ANI Archive 119 Blocking and Unblocking of Giovanni
• ANI Archive 121 Suggestion of indefinitely blocking Giovanni
• AN/3RR Archive 10 First Giovanni 3RR report, made after many violations had been overlooked and many warnings ignored
• AN/3RR Archive 10 BelindaGong 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 11 Another Giovanni 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 11 Kecik 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 11 MikaM 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 11 RTS 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 14 Another Giovanni 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 18 Another Giovanni 3RR report
• AN/3RR Archive 21 Another Giovanni 3RR report
• A report on the Easter stalking incident, but also relevant to Giovanni's sockpuppetry

AnnH ♫ 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this section of Danny's talk page to turn into a debate between two users, so I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. I think it's necessary to respond to some points, though:

• Giovanni claims that for every admin I cite, there are others who felt that the evidence was nothing earth shattering, and that an apology should be issued. Kelly Martin said here that she thought the secondary evidence was weak, and that Professor33 should be unblocked and given an apology. The secondary evidence she was referring to was the fact that they both had "33" in their names, that Professor had reverted to Giovanni's version after Giovanni was blocked for 3RR, and that they both edited similar articles in similar ways. Kelly Martin had not seen any of the linguistic evidence at that stage, and probably did not know of Giovanni's history of sockpuppeting and edit warring. It is unlikely that she had looked at the contributions in depth, and she was commenting only on the case of Professor33, not of HK30, MikaM, Kecik, etc. I have since e-mailed her a complete report, with linguistic evidence matching all these accounts. I am waiting to hear back from her. The admin who said that the evidence was nothing earth shattering (although he supported me) was Wikibofh, here. After he had blocked Professor33, I sent him a brief (I don't know how brief, because I didn't keep a copy) e-mail through the e-mail this user feature telling him of a few of the linguistic similarities, and offering to send him a full report, if he wanted. He did not ask for the report, so I did not send it to him. There is nobody who has seen the report and says that it's not convincing.

• Giovanni is perfectly correct in saying that I was mistaken in believing that BelindaGong was in a different part of thee country. I am not an expert in tracking IPs. The two IPs were public knowledge, as Giovanni and Belinda often edited when logged off, and then acknowledged the edit (e.g. by logging on and changing the signature on a talk page). Giovanni's IP is 64.121.40.153. Belinda's is 38.114.145.148. I originally looked up addresses in Lacnic/whois and got Princeton NJ for 64.121.40.153 (though the same search now says Herndon Virginia), and Washington DC for 38.114.145.148. I told KHM03 here on his talk page, which Giovanni used to read. Obviously, Giovanni and Belinda were laughing up their sleeves at the fact that I was unable to unmask their duplicity. Without having any great knowledge of the matter, I now presume that the locations I got were for the headquarters of the ISP provider, rather than for the person using it. Another administrator informed me of this website for finding locations, and at the time of the stalking incident referred to above, another admin was privately in communication with me, trying to determine if certain anonymous edits had been made by the now-banned User:Trollwatcher, and she told me of dnstuff.com. Both of those sites place Giovanni's IP and Belinda's IP in the California, and Giovanni freely links his user page to his friendster profile, which says he's in California. But I freely admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge in tracking IPs. I'd happily defer to any of the checkuser admins on this issue. From looking at edits made where a suspected puppet acknowledged an IP address as his/hers, I can say that HK30's IP address is 206.61.48.22, and checkuser determined that that HK30 was also Mercury2001. Professor33's IP address is 207.47.40.19, and checkuser established that Professor33 is also NeoOne. Kecik edited from 66.2.31.12, and MikaM edited from 69.107.7.138 and 4.243.109.12 and other IPs that were very similar to both. I got NPOV77's IP address from an e-mail sent to me by a user affected by his block, but don't want to make it public. I have reported it in e-mails to arbitrators and bureaucrats to whom I was submitting the report about Giovanni's sockpuppetry.

• It's quite true that I joined Wikipedia after seeing something posted on another website by someone I had had no prior encounter with. That user (who is now an administrator) asked people to join, as long as they were prepared to follow the rules and respect NPOV. Giovanni discovered that some time after I had exposed his Freethinker99 signature blunder, and posted it in various places, WP:AN/3RR, reverting the admins who removed it, and was blocked for disruption as a result. [68] [69] [70] [71] I have never reverted to Jdavidb's version, and we have never edited the same articles together. Several months after joining, I figured out that it was Jdavidb who had made that post, and thanked him. One wonders why Giovanni, who complains about being wiki-stalked, was reading my messages on the page of a user he had had no encounter with. In any case, Jdavidb was not sitting beside me at the computer, showing me which buttons to press in order to revert to his version!

• It's true that Giovanni has annoyed a lot of people by posting offensive comments about Christianity on pages frequented by Christians —"Christians don't like to talk about their origins. hehe", "that's like believing that the moon is made of cheese", "when we look [at the Eucharist] in a microscope, I don't see red blood cells but fermented grape juice. hehe", "this particular book of such depraved moral instruction" (the Bible), "I also have a problem with calling God mentally ill. I don't think God can get off so easy for his massive crimes against humanity, and genocice {sic.] on an insanity defense." These weren't blockable offences, but they put people's backs up, and didn't help the general editing environment. But most of the editors (including myself) were able to put up with these remarks, and his long block log is a result of sockpuppetry and edit warring, not of going against the Christian POV. (SOPHIA is an atheist who edited that page a lot, but was never blocked or cautioned, and was extremely helpful at the time that the stalking website was set up.) It was a problem that he often used talk pages to argue the evils of Christianity, rather than discuss how the article could be improved, and sometimes copied and pasted long (3000-word) extracts from other sources, despite pleas not to do so.

• Freethinker99 was not blocked because Giovanni "introduced" him. He was blocked because he pretended to have no connection to Giovanni, and started supporting him (talk page posts and article reverts) until he was caught out. Regarding my "improper block" of NeoOne, I asked Jayjg to do a user check, and he confirmed that Professor33 was likely Giovanni33 and NeoOne was without doubt Professor33. I asked him if it would be okay for me to block, as I was involved in editing the same article, and he said that since it's a confirmed puppet of a banned puppet, there would be no problem.[72]

• Giovanni seems to think that once he can prove that he is married to someone called BelindaGong, he'll be cleared of all wrongdoing. I don't know why he still thinks that, when he has been told numerous times that getting your wife to join so that she can revert to your version and support you on talk pages is a violation of our policies. He was asked to read that policy at a very early stage, before the checkuser results came out. There would still have been time to stop. The question is — for what purpose was the BelindaGong account created? I don't think anyone could look at the contributions and decide that it was created for any other purpose than that of ensuring the Giovanni got the version he wanted. In any case, there is some indication that Giovanni may have made at leaset some of those edits from an account that he registered in his wife's name.

• Giovanni will be unable to respond to what I have written, as he is currently under a one-week ban block. If you wish to follow this more fully, you can add his talk page to your watchlist, as he is bound to respond there. A possible community ban is being discussed here. Sorry about my very long posts! AnnH ♫ 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again, Danny. I've updated a link to the discussion at WP:ANI, as the old one no longer works: it's the same discussion. Not wishing to clog up your page more than it's already been clogged, I have responded to Giovanni's claim that I think he should be punished even though he may be innocent here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I'm really sorry to bother you with all this, because I know myself how difficult it can be when two unknown users suddenly take up residence at your talk page and engage in a long argument about something that you don't know the background of. I just wanted to inform you that Giovanni's last three "suspected" puppets are now "confirmed", following another user check. See here. Regards. AnnH ♫ 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising

Danny-- It was good to meet you at the party at the MIT Museum earlier tonight. The analysis of previous fundraisers that I conducted is available here. I didn't get much in the way of comments or requests before, but could easily extend in many ways (including to other currencies). When I get back from vacation on August 31, what do you think would be most useful to add or explore?

Also, the Wikidemia Quant project has now operationalized header information (article title, articleid, editor name, editorid, timestamp) from revision history data (with special credit to Erik Garrison). If donors give their usernames, it would now be easy to link their donation information with their editing information and study correlations. The real bonanza of useful, practical lessons will come from running randomized experiments (rough ideas). Jeremy Tobacman 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

American University abroad information

Hi there. I noticed that you removed some information at American University regarding the abroad program, citing that it was unsourced. Here are a number of articles from the school newspaper which highlight the South Africa incidents:

• [73]
• [74]
• [75]

Let me know if you'd like some more information. If you find this ssuitable, please reinstate the information. Thanks. --SparqMan 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I tried using your "E-mail this user" option, but that isn't an option for you. Feel free to email me at sparqman [at] gmail [dot] com to discuss. --SparqMan 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia stuff

שלום, בעקבות השיחה שלנו בוויקימניה, בנוגע לקשר בין ויקי העברית לארגון העולמי ואפשרות הקמת צ'פטר ישראלי - רעיון הקמת צ'פטר זוכה להתייחסות די צוננת. כמו שחשבתי, זה נתפס כצעד עם הרבה כאב ראש ובירוקרטיה ומעט תועלת. לגבי הקשר בין הקהילה המקומית לבינלאומית - יש באמת חשדנות מסוימת, כאילו ויקי העולמית מנסה להכתיב דברים מלמעלה. לא זכור לי שאי פעם נתקלתי בתכתיב כזה, ולכן לא כל כך ברור לי מאיפה נובעת החשדנות, אבל בהחלט ייתכן שאני ויקיפד צעיר מדי, ולא מכיר את כל ההיסטוריה. בכל מקרה, צריך חריש עמוק בנוגע ל"יחסים הדיפלומטיים". אשמח לעזור, אבל מהתרשמות ראשונית (מאז שחזרתי), יהיה לי קשה מאוד לעשות את זה לבד. Drork 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Usuario Nazi at spanish Wikipedia

As we talked at Wikimania, I waited until the finish of the poll of his deletion, independently of the result. Incredibly, the poll decided not delete. But, i was bold and deleted the userboxes Usuario Nazi and Usuario Antifacista, mentioning Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Etiquette. More at Plantillas no permitidas en páginas de usuario --Zuirdj 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus College (Literary Landmark)

I enjoyed the wikisource you took the time and trouble to put together. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're great

Hi Danny, I just felt like stopping by and telling you I think you're great. That's all. I know you don't like email, and I'm currently avoiding IRC, so just passing it on on-wiki. :-) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

You seem to have edited out links to my Commons contributions from my user page. Was this intentional? Stephen B Streater 06:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicken and Egg

The video situation seems to be a bit chicken and egg here. Which will come first - the free video player or the free content? Free software development thrives where there is a demand - caused by free video content to play back. But there is no incentive to add free video content when so few people can play it back. If either part can be fixed, the other will follow, and we'll get into a virtuous circle. The simplest thing to fix is to enable video playback, as this only has to happen once. Then each editor can add free video. Wikipedia seems to be stuck in a Catch-22 trap here. Thank you for helping to find a way to break out of it. Stephen B Streater 10:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This might interest you

Following encouragement on the Arbcom page, I've started this discussion on coincidence of interest with a view to clarifying policy in this area. Given your position here, if you edit this, I'd appreciate it if you could make clear which changes are must haves and which are part of the brainstorming process to develop a solution. Stephen B Streater 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit by User:Drini, and request for emergency desysopping of this administrator

On 29 August 2006 at 21:35 User:Drini deleted Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit [76], purportedly as a result of a Miscellany for deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit dated 01:04, 29 August 2006 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination)). However, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion clearly states that "Items sent here are usually discussed for eight days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept." Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit clearly does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, and no argument whatsoever was offered for deleting this page less than 24 hours after the Miscellany for deletion nomination. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) clearly does not contain a consensus for deletion -- indeed, a strong supermajority of comments by established users were against deletion, so, even if it were proper to close the Miscellany for deletion nomination in less than 24 hours, the result should have been either "keep" or "no consensus". Most importantly, however, closure of the Miscellany for deletion nomination in less than 24 hours for a page that is clearly ineligible for speedy deletion, without any justification, is massively disruptive. User:Drini's speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit upset the normal Miscellany for deletion process, by preventing most users affected by this deletion from commenting on the proposed deletion. Therefore, I request that Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit be restored, and that User:Drini be temporarily desysopped as an emergency measure to prevent re-deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit or other disruptive use of administrative privileges until such time as the arbitration committee can consider whether User:Drini should continue to enjoy administrative privileges. John254 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Financial policy of Wikimedia Foundation

Hi there. I was recently reading the en-wiki mailing list, and I noticed this post from someone called Danny: [77]. I hope I have the right Danny! The reason I am writing here is that you talk about the financial running of the Wikimedia Foundation. I recently tried to read up on this, and what I asked elsewhere can be seen here. My main concern was the unanswered queries at Meta:Talk:Finance department. If I have the right person, would you be able to pass on the request for these pages to be updated? Thanks. Carcharoth 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking a favor

Hi, I'd like to ask a favor. I know that the m:Single login specifications is coming to wikipedia, and I'd like to ask if you could rename my account for Rafael, o Galvão. thanks Rafael, the Gawain 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Crosstar Image

Hey Danny, any update on the status on the Crosstar Image? It's Office Protection was originally supposed to expire on July 10. If you're not at liberty to discuss it, I understand, however if there's any news you can share I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Kaldari 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image licencing status

It would be great if you could clarify the licencing status of this image. Haukur 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its save to say that Danny is an appropriate representative for this image for the purpose of copyright. It would probably be more useful for you to focus your work on clarifying the status of things which are not so .. laughable. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want the licence to be clear, "leave it alone" and "public domain" doesn't add up in my brain. If that can be explained then I have no further concerns. Haukur 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Danny, Mike Garcia has been indef. blocked for this edit, in which he seems to be claiming that he is Johnny the Vandal. Is that how you read it? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion on WP:AN/I about the block. Geogre 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Canildo

Well said, even if bolding the whole lot seems, well, bold.  ;-) Regards, Ben Aveling 11:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Was this intentional?

Did you mean to do this? Looks like a mistake to me but I don't want to undo it if there's some reason for it. Friday (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Left you a message on Talk:Dannyisme

Not sure how often you log into that account, but I left you a message over there about a case I believe needs office intervention. Crockspot 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiya

How long have you been at Wikipedia? You have 32,094 edits. If anybody's a Wikiholic, it's you, lol.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation Help

Hi. I was wondering if you could help out with the translation of the title Operation Wrath of God into Hebrew. I had originally put in Mitzvah Elohim, which I had found it refered to on the internet, but another user has replaced it with Mitzvah Zaam Ha'el, which seems so be the title of the Hebrew version of the article [78]. Is either right? Thanks, Joshdboz 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Joshdboz 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext

Hey, I think that when you made edits to this, you forgot to close off the <center> tag, and now the recent changes are all centered. I figured I'd probably get a quicker response posting here than on the talk page. Thanks! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. --Jay(Reply) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation Help

Hi. I was wondering if you could help out with the translation of the title Operation Wrath of God into Hebrew. I had originally put in Mitzvah Elohim, which I had found it refered to on the internet, but another user has replaced it with Mitzvah Zaam Ha'el, which seems so be the title of the Hebrew version of the article [79]. Is either right? Thanks, Joshdboz 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Joshdboz 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext

Hey, I think that when you made edits to this, you forgot to close off the <center> tag, and now the recent changes are all centered. I figured I'd probably get a quicker response posting here than on the talk page. Thanks! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. --Jay(Reply) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contest entry

Hoi: could I do the Medici bank as a contest entry? I know it doesn't actually exist yet, but it really should since it is a rather vital topic to European history and the rise of modern finance. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Gwern (contribs) 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, it doesn't have to be an existing article? I got the immpression you are looking for nice and comprehensive articles with no sources cited. --Dijxtra 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Contest

Thanks! (It's pretty much the only thing on my to-do list that doesn't have references at this point, actually, as I usually add them to any stubs that I create. Hopefully the result will be more-or-less presentable.) Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrates contest entry

Alright. I'll post a more descriptive comment and leave it up to the judges. I don't mean to be cheap or anything: I just think it's a good entry, which I started a little too soon... -- Rmrfstar 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Danny, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. When you told me on IRC that you voted for me, I was quite amazed. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard and be a good administrator, especially since you of all people supported me! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. By the way, what does the Hebrew text on your User Page mean? —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contest + FAs

I noticed your contest, which is excellent in terms of its intent and will hopefully motivate people. Not to further dampen spirits about quality but this Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems is an interesting list; more than 300 of our FAs have no in-line citations and just under 500 have fewer than 10. The difficult part with older FAs is that once they've appeared on the main page I think there's less of an impetus to look after them or raise their quality as general standards improve.

Anyhow, the book-end to raising new articles to feature quality is taking care of those already tagged as such. Any ideas on how to get people to "adopt" an old FA welcome. Marskell 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

HRE's RFA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_4 was unprotected 2 weeks ago or so despite it being listed on WP:OFFICE, so I reprotected it, but I must agree that it should probably be unprotected by now. So I'm requesting delisting on WP:OFFICE if office protection is indeed no longer necessary. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Polar exploration

Hi, Danny, and thanks for your message. I see that the article is in good hands now. I don't object to removal of Russian material from one section to another. In Russian contexts, the 16th and even 17th century are frequently classed as Middle Ages. But we should look at the wider chronological frame here. I would add a sentence or two about Georgy Sedov and the first icebreaker in the world, if I had more time. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DC

I just read your contest page over at WP:DC. I know your heart is in the right place, but I just can't stop thinking of Mephistopheles. Ironically, that article could use some work. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When to advise the office?

I think it would be helpful for admins and users to have a better idea of what situations call for a referral to the Office. For example, a few weeks ago, I came across a legal threats situation. This was not an idle "if you don't change that I'll sue," but a very specific statement of intent to pursue litigation by a litigious person. When I asked on AN/I if this should be referred to the office (I'm not an admin), an experienced administrator indicated that the Office prefers for the general body of administrators and users to deal with these situations itself, rather than getting the Office involved. Fortunately that particular situation seems to have receded quickly, as least as concerns the English Wikipedia. However, yesterday I saw another article with serious legal threats, inquired whether this should be directed to the office, and this morning I see that the article is under Office protection. No one wants to bother Office with situations that can be handled by the community, but I don't want you to be unaware of things you would want to know about either. Some clarification might be helpful for everyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Straus, et al

I was following the Sandy Straus discussion yesterday on AN/I, and your post today was a pleasant end to it. Thanks. From the content of the discussion, I can only imagine how much fun an extensive call was. You have my sympathies. William Pietri 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling

User:Eleemosynary has been reinserting the nipple slip information, which is why, I think, you deleted the article. Maybe a scrubbing of the history and a warning to that user would be in order? Just a word to the wise, FYI. Billy Blythe 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Gypsies in Serbia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gypsies in Serbia.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Corinna

Hi Danny, how nice to hear from you again, and I see you have a new job: congratulations. On Corinna, I only created that article to remove a red link at Oxyrhynchus. I'm sure you know much more about her than I do. On another matter, I got to spend a week in Berlin in May and visited all the museums and memorials you would expect me to visit - very draining. It inspired me to take up the project of a new Holocaust article again. But now that Wikipedia has, rightly, set new standards for attribution and referencing, I will need to do some more reading. Let me ask you: if you had to nominate five recent books that define current Holocaust scholarship and that I really must read, what wouild they be? Adam 09:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny! Please don't ignore my message in your further contributions. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not only a way of "protection" against vandalism, but also a useful thing when tracking the history of an article. Last but not least, it's also an advantageous feature for you, as you can check the list of your contributions and even after years you will find out why you edited articles.

If you use Mozilla Firefox, your previous edit summaries are saved and the next time you only need write the beginning of it (if you wish to use the same one) in the "Edit summary field" and choose the rest of the text automatically.

Of course, it's not a hard and fast rule, but as you can read at Help:Edit summary, it is highly recommended. That is also my opinion and I would be grateful if you could provide summaries for your edits. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fleshlight

It's at deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your nice words. I hope this article will be ready to go for FAC, when I'm over with Alcibiades.--Yannismarou 09:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Himmler speech

Thanks for your reply to my recent question. Another one: Have you seen / heard this? It seems too good to be true - it is authentic? Adam 09:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Working in the Wikipedia Office

Danny, I've just read your piece on the Fleshlight DRV. It gives an insight into what you do that I didn't have before, which is very useful. So useful in fact that I think that an essay or piece for the Wikipedia Signpost, where many more Wikipedians will see it, will be both interesting and, hopefully, lead to fewer slanging matches about your motives than has been the case in this DRV. Thryduulf 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV comments welcome

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_9#Food_products_deleted_under_G11 --Improv 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also related to this, I've left a message on your office talk page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The DRV was affirmed, if you clicked the above link since then it would have come up blank. Here is the archived diff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi i was just wondering what your last name is so i can ask my dad if he remembers you --Gregorykay 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Messy campain spilling over to wikipedia

Thought I should give yu a heads up: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#John_Doolittle_and_John_M._Poswall - You might get a call about this at some point. Poswall is a very determined lawyer and he was just blocked. Then again, maybe nothing will happen. ---J.S (t|c) 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka

If you feel so strongly about the issues you raised regarding the Elonka article, why haven't you ever tried to do anything about this blatant piece of vanity, David Mertz, created by its own much less notable male subject, who edit warred it to remove information that might embarass him in his current political role, and has created spamlinks on this page and his userpage to a site where he begs for money?? VivianDarkbloom 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Wikimedia Quarto

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Wikimedia Quarto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Wikimedia Quarto. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonia Bennett

FYI, an article that you speedy-deleted (and which I agree with you was a vanity page)[80] popped up again, and is now going through a more formal AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bennett. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to weigh in with an opinion. :) --Elonka 05:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like to see my comments Talk:Antonia_Bennett#Non-deletion_review. Unfortunately, I did not see it on time. Danny 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article's existence is worth re-examining. I've replied to your comments, and also invited participation from editors at Deletion Review. My own recommendation is to start a second AfD and just get wider participation this time around, which should result in a pretty resounding "delete" and put the matter to rest. For what it's worth, I strongly strongly agree with you that Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion, and I can point you to many places where I have argued vehemently against such things. I'm very sorry if I ever gave you the impression that I felt otherwise! --Elonka 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Danny, thank you for participating in my RfA. Though the nomination turned out to be unsuccessful, I still intend to continue with my support of Wikipedia. I firmly believe that this is an amazing project with a bright future, and I very much enjoy being a part of it. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I do find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove links from catsuit

Hi, I see you've removed all the external links from the catsuit page. Whereas they may not all be suitable, I think some are. If you really think every one is inapproriate, should you remove the 'External links' section too? Happy to discuss, can pick through the good&bad sites if you like --Mortice 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

name change request

Hi Danny, I need to change my username. Would you please help me out? Tootles.. =p --Dan Asad 05:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing_username is what you want. :) Cowman109^Talk 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rollback by you

I'm a little puzzled by your rollback of an edit to Keysar Trad. Would you be able to explain why you did it? Thanks, Andjam 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deleted fair use image replacement

Hi Danny. I do not understand the purpose of keeping track of all of the images deleted under FUC #1. The volume is pretty staggering, and whatever use the list has will surely diminish as it grows to unmanageable size. Could you comment on the talk page? ×Meegs 10:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochian angels 2

This article/list is up for deletion discussion again. As you started the article back in 2004, I'm dropping you a courtesy note. GRBerry 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Larry Gluck/Mission: Rennaisance, why did you delete without discussion?

I am curious as to why you deleted articles on Larry Gluck and Mission: Rennaisance without any discussion. These articles were sourced, just starting out, and had many other articles in the mainstream press and other notable websites. Gallup 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

Why is the Pacific Western University article protected? -- Fyslee 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Emails

Danny, thanks for your email, which I have replied to. I seem to be having some trouble with my emails lately, so please let me know that you did / did not recieve my reply. Adam 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I've noticed that you're an admin in commons, but you're not active there. I left you some messeges in commons:User talk:Danny and I would like to chat with you.

Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Counter Records

I was just adding some further information to the Counter Records article to expand it, and it disappeared from under me. Can this be reinstated please? Gram 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

About your revert in Ice Hockey page

Hi Danny,

could you please explain me why you have remove my link additions and modifications in the Ice_hockey page ? Thanks in advance.

Puck.ch 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason I did. See WP:EL. Yankees76 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Thanks. You can remove (or archive) this talk section. And one more time, sorry for the trouble.Puck.ch 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Challenges

Hey Danny, just wanted to let you know that I recently listed Wikipedia:Challenges, which you created, on miscellany for deletion. You can find the discussion here. Also, what was rationale behind its creation in the first place? Is there any appropriate village pump proposal? Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Danny, I'm not literate in Yiddish so I can't follow this up myself, but could I possibly prevail on you to comment at Talk:Yiddish_language#the_destruction_of_the_yiddish_wikipadia, since your name was mentioned? - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead link at Dub of Scotland

I saw you found a dead link on Dub of Scotland, so (since I added them), I've removed the rest of the dead links to the site. Thanks for spotting this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Illustrated Wikipedia

Could you help me out here and here? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm creating a stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia: do you want to add yourself as a participant? Your input would be valuable in any case. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Rvirga

Requesting unblock... just an FYI :)  Glen  18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there a reason he's blocked for a month so quickly? I saw he added the link once as anon, and then again with a new account, although an abundant assumption of good faith might allow for the interpretation that he never saw the warning at his anon talk page, if he created an account. Has the article or link been a problem in the past, or something? Or is this a trend towards harsher spam enforcement I haven't yet heard of? Or am I just a bloke for not knowing the contents of the secret office communication you mentioned? :p Luna Santin 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Not to comment on the whole trend, but in this particular case he's acknowledged that his edit "might" have been bad, which makes me think we may be able to work with him and get a good editor out of the bargain. Would you object to lessening the duration, if he agrees to avoid that sort of thing in the future? Or is that naive on my part? Luna Santin 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Timecop

I'd like an explanation, especially for the "will be done from office" reason for unblock 2 minutes later. To me, this looks like a personal attack. --timecop 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

please integrate Yiddish translation for fundraising

we are a small community, but we have a few hundred daily readers due to the interesting news on the front page. [81] and money may come in as a thanks from them. thanks.--yidi 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I need your assistance in Wikimedia Commons...

Can you help me translating and stuff..? Please...? Yuval Y • Chat • 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Debatepedia.com query

Hi, I noticed that you went to the DC Meetup, and that you're a dedicatd Wikipedian. I'm the founder of Debatepedia.com, the new wiki debate encyclopedia, and am working out of DC with a group of Georgetown students and professors. I was hoping to get your suggestions, and maybe meet up in person, if you'd like. Brooks Lindsay 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Öhhhh? Why did you revert my edits on the Gävle goat?????????

??????????? FreddyFred 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please restore ASAP! FreddyFred 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr! Don't bother, I'll do it myself! FreddyFred 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, give me at least an explanation!?!?!? FreddyFred 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets us say you where pissed at the youtube link, I buy that. But why did you then revert all the references I put up? Dosen't make any sense? I'm going to restore all the links and text before your revertion (like it diden't take me enough of my time to write it in the first place!). I'm going to leave out the youtube link, if that is going to make you happpier and consult with others before I may or may not put it up again. I put the video on there as a link because it is relevant to the article and enhances the understanding of the impact of the Gävle goat. It is Swedish folk culture, which is now also spreading world wide. The keyword qwhen I work on an article is: RELEVANCE......... 00:42, 7 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyFred (talk • contribs)

Gabites Porter Consultants

I strongly protest against the deletion of the above article. You did not even take the time to announce the deletion (the page was on my watchlist, so I would have added content if I was aware of any such moves), or notify me, as the creator of the article. I think your behaviour leaves something to be desired! MadMaxDog 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, please revert the delete, and I will attempt to both provide more info to flesh it out, as well as provide links. If you do not, I will recreate the article. MadMaxDog 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Traffic Design Group

The summary of this delete added insult to injury. Excuse me, said company has existed for 30 years, produced hundreds of designs built in the real world, including parking buildings, shopping centres and motorways and has several millions of turnover per year. But according to you, it is 'Non-notable spam'? But tiny software companies are notable, here, huh? MadMaxDog 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As above, please revert the deletion, and I will work on improving the article. MadMaxDog 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, biatch! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.70.11 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Image:Giraffewithbaby.jpg

Hi Danny - saw your reply to antilived. I'm the one who originally raised the question - for the reason that the image has a moire, which suggests (but does not prove) it is a scan, not a photograph. We (i.e. the wikipedians on WP:FPC) don't wish to make any trouble, we just want to know why that photo has a moire pattern over it. We would very much like to have a better version uploaded, without the artifacts... Greetings, Janke | Talk 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wannsee

Danny, do have Eberhard Jackel, "The Purpose of the Wannsee Conference", in a form which you can send to me? You have my email address, and I can give you a fax number if you need it. By the way you never replied to my email of 19 November. Adam 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

To: Danny

From: Dr Santa

Dr Santa - talk 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits

Hi - The addition to Denver, Colorado that you reverted with this edit does not look like obvious vandalism suitable for using the rollback function. In general, I think it's good form to not use rollback for anything except very obvious "bad faith" edits and for any other situation a regular edit with a summary providing a rationale is warranted. I realize this takes slightly more effort, but I think is much more polite - WP:AGF and WP:BITE and all that. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you complaining that I removed the same advertisement text that you removed (though I also removed the link to YouTube). Let's be clear. We get a spam link every three seconds. We are not even beginning to catch the ads that are going into articles posing as encyclopedic content. Perhaps if we were to deal with the problem instead of worrying about the feelings of spammers, we would make some headway. Danny 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about removing the text (and, yes, I deleted the same text), just suggesting that you don't use rollback for anything that might be a good faith edit. I completely agree we get tons of advertisements posing as articles, but we must still assume good faith. I suspect we get quite a number of new users who've never read WP:NOT and don't realize they shouldn't be adding advertisements. If we have good reason to believe they already know about our policies, revert away (hell, warn then block). If they're new, IMO we should tell them not to add advertisements in a fairly friendly way in hopes that they'll become productive editors (maybe they'll even help watch for other misguided folks adding advertisements and help spread the word). Most new users are not the enemy. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You use rollback for edits that are bad. It is all rather simple. In fact, I was around when rollback was instituted. Danny 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I know who you are, and it amazes me that you seem to be arguing about this. You are well aware that WP:BITE and WP:AGF are guidelines. I'm simply reminding you that reverting newcomer's edits that aren't obviously vandalism arguably violates one or both of these, per Help:Reverting#Rollback. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling?

Why is this article still office protected? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

USHMM

Hi, what's the status of images from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum? I seem to remember reading something about them releasing all their images under the GFDL so that Wikipedia can use them; is that right? Is there a special tag for images like Image:Ukraine massacres.png? At the moment that's a pretty blatantly replaceable fair-use image, but if it's GFDL it can stay. —Angr 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request For Help

Hey. I am new to this, and was looking for notable persons to help me make positive contributions to wikipedia. I really enjoy this site and have been a fan for the better half of a decade. One thing I would like to add, which seems to be quite controversial, is the existance of Fire Whackers. I was planning on a lenghthy contribution on this matter when I was contacted by another user and told to leave it be. I am very curious as to why I am being advised against said matter. However, I was not contacted through your site, as I said I am new to this, however I do have a Myspace account (guilty!) and was contacted about this matter from their. I am unsure of this users credibility given the history of said discussion and other unrelated topics that have been written by this author. I am truly sorry for any trouble. Thank you again for all your help. --AngelofMusic1337 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandt

Cheers, mate. the one you need to tell is User:Zoe. Have a nice Christmas, SqueakBox 02:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of Bach sound files

Dear Danny

You have clearly breached the fair-use guidelines for uploads made before the threshold date. This, among other related issues, is causing a great deal of hostility.

Please reinstate the files and post a notice on the talk page of the article; when that is done, we can start the debate as to whether the files do in fact breach the fair-use guidelines. Whatever conclusions you and Maxwell may have taken it upon yourselves to arrive at unilaterally and without communication, the due process requires seven days for debate and/or modification of stated reasons for fair use.

Even without this rule, it would have been practical and, dare I say it, proper, to raise the matter on the talk page; this is particularly the case since the issue of what is and isn't fair use rests significantly on interpretation at this stage, and is an unstable issue on the fair-use talk page.

If this matter remains unresolved, we'll take it further: this will include the proposed deletion of the seven-day rule, since failure to revert and go through the legal oprocess will represent a wilfull breach. We believe that it is preferable to remove that rule than have it applied in an arbitrary and self-serving manner, whenever you please.

Tony 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I used "illegal" to refer to a breaching of the fair-use policy, not as an external legal threat, as the person below appears to assume.

I'm astounded that you can't be bothered to post a substantive reply to the issues that I've raised. This appears to be consistent with your attitude to the requirement to wait for seven days after posting notice of disputed fair-use status, i.e., your preclusion of debate. I'd be please if you explained. Tony 11:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PS There's only one image on my talk page: of myself. If you have an issue, why don't you specify which image you're referring to. Tony 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and heart-felt explanation of why you feel that fair use must be constrained. However, you still haven't explained why the use of the two excerpts for which the recording company has given permission to use in the article were deleted. Does explicit, written permission make no difference? You haven't explained why you failed to observe the seven-day rule. And I wonder why the fair-use policy is not framed or worded in such a way as to clearly support all of your contentions (if they were, you'd not have needed to make your statement). And you attacked me personally in a way that undermines the very point you made in that attack.

I'm left in considerable doubt as to the extent to which your views are ensconsed in WP's fair-use policy. As I read the policy, there's scope for fair-use that I think we were entitled to consider in a seven-day period. I don't quite see the assertion below that "fair use rationale does not properly cover the use of a modern recording in illustrating an article which is not itself about either that recording or its performers" spelt out or even implied in the policy.

I ask again why the rule is not observed by reversion to the status quo and subsequent reasoned debate. If not, please explain what the seven-day rule does refer to. Am I reading it incorrectly? Since you're attempting to enforce a policy, it strikes me as basic that you observe that policy to the fullest extent, and not arbitrarily. 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I would've thought it was obvious that Danny was referring to the exerpt from Riders in the chariot which was on your user page. -- MediaMangler 12:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's WP:NLT policy which forbids legal threats. Your choice of language above is either quite incorrect (using 'legal' and 'legal process' to describe internal wikipedia resolution methods) or it is an implied threat to sue or otherwise take legal action. Either way, be aware that legal threats will result in you being blocked from editing the project to protect others. If you meant to refer to the internal methods of resolution (like WP:DRV), then please restate that appropriately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Arguing the toss with Danny about deletion of copyright material may not be the most productive use of your time, Tony. I back the deletions, for the reasons stated - fair use rationale does not properly cover the use of a modern recording in illustrating an article which is not itself about either that recording or its performers. Even in an article on the performers it would be problematic because there are multiple performers and the copyright holder is in any case probably the recording company. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are certain externalities we cannot alter. One of these is that Danny has the last word on copyright. We all hope that he uses his word wisely.

At any rate, if some page on wikipedia says A, and Danny says B, then policy is B. This decision is final, and no further correspondence can be entered into. At your option, you may edit the so-called "policy page" to reflect the reality of this situation, or -should you prefer- you may continue to believe in unicorns. Have a nice day :-) Kim Bruning 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• You stated on my talk page:

"It is quite clear that you oppose the underlying policies of Wikipedia and intend to subvert them.

I am very good at subverting users who do that."

No, you're quite wrong: I don't intend to subvert the underlying policies—I just didn't understand them, and was perplexed at the discrepancy between the black-letter FU policy, and current practice (see current debate on FU talk, where this is openly admitted). The ongoing changes to policy also don't appear to be promulgated efficiently. And your role in the organisation was certainly unclear to me—how on earth would I know that?

So please don't issue implied threats to me, or write edit summaries that might be taken as insulting, such as "not worth my time". If the FU policy had been updated properly, the dispute would never have occurred, and I'd never have become so upset. Tony 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

Danny over a month ago you emailed me inviting me to participate in a certain project. I replied at once, but I have had no response from you despite two prompts, above. I know you are about because I can see you are engaging with other people here. What is going on?

Also: Do you know if the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedias have articles on the Holocaust? If so, what do they say? If you don't know, who would know? How can I find out? Regards Adam 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

apology

Guess I owe you an apology for being ... narky. If the bigger picture had been clearer to me from the start, I'd not have acted on my emotions. Tony 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-he

Query 1

שלום, בהמשך לשיחתנו ב-IRC: הוויקיפדים העבריים מבקשים יותר פרטים בנוגע לבקשה שלך למחוק כל תמונה שהועלתה לצורך שימוש בוויקיפדיה בלבד, בלי לשחרר אותה לגמרי לנחלת הציבור. אני טענתי בעקבותיך שזו הפרה של כלל בסיסי במדיניות של קרן ויקימדיה, והציבור העברי ביקש לדעת "איפה זה כתוב". תוכל לתת לי קישור לדף המדיניות הרלוונטי במטא, או להביא אותו בעצמך במזנון של ויקי העברית? דף השיחה שלי הוא זה: w:he:user talk:drork. תודה. drork 12:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Query 2

עוד נשאלה השאלה מה העמדה של ויקיפדיה על תמונות שימוש הוגן (שהשימוש בהן רב בויקי האנגלית), שהרי כל אחד יכול להשתמש בהן בהתאם לכללי שימוש הוגן, ושאלה נוספת עלתה בנוגע לרישיון הקיים אצלנו לפיו משחררים את התמונות לכל שימוש ובלבד שלא יהיה בתשלום (מעין רישיון

atribute לפיו מותר כל שימוש חופשי (גם מסחרי) אבל אף משתמש לא יכול לעשות רווח ישיר מהתמונה (אפשר להשתמש בה בפרסומות או בדברים הניתנים בחינם, אך לא בספרים הנמכרים תמורת כסף) רישיון זה מתאים יותר לרישיון GNU ולכאורה אי אפשר להעלות תמונות אלה לויקישיתוף בשל ההגבלה. Deror 13:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Query 3

Danny, Michaeli uploaded about 400 pictures he photographed himself, and he said that he is willing to post them as GFDL. All of his pictures use the template Template:תמונות משתמש מיכאלי, would that be fine if he changes the template's content into "{{GFDL}}", to make all the pictures have a GFDL license? If not, how can he change the license information without having to re-upload his entire 400-photos collection? Thanks, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

שלום דני.

אני מציע שבמקום שהדברים ייעשו בטלפון שבור, תכתוב בעצמך במפורש מה אתה רוצה במקומות המתאימים בויקיפדיה העברית (ואין בעיה שתכתוב באנגלית, ואחרים ישיבו לך בעברית). כמו שהדברים התנהלו עד עכשיו סתם סיבכתם דברים פשוטים, בגלל הטלפון השבור הזה.

וחוץ מזה, אני לא מבין בשביל מה צריך היה לעורר כזו היסטריה, ולדרוש לעמוד בלוחות זמנים לא הגיוניים לחלוטין? צריך קודם כל לבדוק בדיוק מה הבעיה, למצוא פתרון, ורק אז לפעול, ולא קודם כל להתחיל לפעול בהיסטריה, ואז רק להתחיל לחשוב מה עושים בכלל. גם כך האווירה אצלנו מתוחה. אין שום סיבה להוסיף לזה לחינם. eman 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

4th Query

Hi, I understand there is a problem with some of our licenses. Before you jump and make a schedule (24 hrs, 2 weeks..), I would like to understand which are the problematic images. As far as I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the foundation's policy is to have only free content. On the other hand, I see many "fair use" images here in the English Wikipedia. I thus understand that the actual foundation's policy is to allow unfree content if such content cannot be found elsewhere (such as albums, logos etc.). Am I correct? If I am correct, there is no contradiction between our (he wiki) policy and the foundation's policy. Our policy is exactly the same - to allow "fair use" and other limiting images - in the case where no other free images are available.

We do not allow unfair use of images, and strive to have free images. Many times we do not have images available, because of the small society of the hebrew speeking nation, thus we accept limiting images from people who can give us images we cannot get elsewhere. Can you see? Our policy does not contradict the actual foundation policy. I ask you - why do we need to delete "fair use" images we cannot get elsewhere, while EN Wikipedia themselves uses such limiting images? Why does EN Wikipedia get a better deal?

It looks like to me that you are just out to get us. On one hand you allow EN wikipedia to have limiting images that do not consist with GFDL, but on the other - you suddenly notice we do the same and give use 24 hours to delete 1000+ images? Heck, even 2 weeks is not enough. Are you telling me that this "getting rid of fair use images" policy is an EN policy too? Because it sure doesnt look like it. Most of the limiting images we get are from the EN wiki, FYI.

And finally, threatening to block all of the users which uploaded such images along time ago, whihout knowing your new "no limiting images" policy is not a way to deliver a message. You are, I suppose, an important figure in the foundation, and throwing threats at such a manner, scearing the *crap* out of everyone, is not the way to handle things. The community, based on the responses there, wishes to see you calm, not alarming. I sugget you explain what we are doing wrong, and not just ask ask us to fix "it" - we have no idea how the images are different from fair use images in the EN wikipedia. I sugget you explain why you need to block so many users who did nothing wrong from their point of view. I sugget that the next time you wish to explain something, you do it without the threating part, because it underrates you.

PS - you were questioned some of the above comments in the HE wikipedia, I thought I better translate it to english for you, because it seemed like you missed the more improtant parts of the conversation.

Regards, Yoni Yonidebest 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny, Please note that both Yoni and myself have replied to your message on Yoni's Hebrew talk page. Daniel 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

פעם אחרונה ודי

דני שלום,

בעקבות הדיון שהיה לנו לקחתי על עצמי (יש עוד שמוכנים לעזור) לסדר את כל עניין הרשיונות. סימנתי רשיונות רבים כמועמדים לבדיקה, בהם רשיונות ללא שימוש מסחרי, רשיונות לשימוש חינוכי בלבד, רשיון לשימוש בוויקיפדיה בלבד, רשיון של רוסיה הסובייטית וכל מיני רשיונות שלא תואמים את עמדת הקרן. יש לי רק כמה שאלות:

קודם כל, ראיתי שיש בוויקישיתוף רשיונות PD מארצות ספציפיות, כמו PD-US ו-PD-DE - כלומר רשיונות שהם PD רק במדיניות מסוימות. האם לאפשר תמונות כאלו גם בוויקיפדיה העברית? זאת אומרת, נראה לי מוזר שאפשר להגביל את ה-PD למדינה ספציפית.

שנית, ראיתי שיש כל מיני חלוקות בסיבות להווצרות תמונת PD, כמו PD-self, PD-Coa, PD-old וכד' - האם יש צורך בחלוקה מבחינה משפטית או מבחינת הקרן, או שזה לשם נוחות בלבד?

שלישית, בישראל פג תוקפם של תמונות עם זכויות יוצרים אחרי 50 שנה אחרי יצירת התמונה - ובארה"ב זה 70 שנה. איך אפשר ליישב את העניין הזה? האם ויקיפדיה העברית צריכה לפעול לפי הדין הישראלי או לפי הדין האמריקאי במקרה זה?

רביעית, בישראל החוקים בנוגע לשימוש הוגן שונים מהכללים בארה"ב. לפעמים הם מחמירים ולפעמים מקלים, לעומת האמריקאי. האם אנחנו צריכים לפעול לפי החוקים בישראל או לפי החוקים בארה"ב? מבחינה משפטית, אני חושב שבתור תושב מדינת ישראל אני מחויב להקשיב למשפט הישראלי. מה עמדת הקרן לגבי זה?

אני מתנצל אם העלבתי אותך בפעם הקודמת שדיברנו. כל העניין הזה נפל עלינו ב"בום" אחד גדול ולא היינו בכלל מודעים שהכללים האלו מחייבים את כל המיזמים של הקרן, בכללם אותנו. אגב, נראה לי שכדאי להפיץ מן הודעה רשמית בקשר לזה, כי אני לא חושב שכל המיזמים מודעים לזה. וממה שהבנתי, נתת לנו שבועיים לסדר את עניין הרשיונות, ואני חושב שאנחנו צריכים הרבה יותר משבועיים. משהו כמו שלושה חודשים. יש לנו 21 אלף תמונות עליהם אנחנו צריכים לעבור, ובערך 4 משתמשים שמוכנים לעזור, נכון לעכשיו. אנחנו כידוע לך קהילה לא גדולה, ולכן אשמח אם תתחשב בנו.

אם אני צריך להפנות את השאלות האלו לאדם אחר, אנא הפנה אותי אליו ואתרגם את זה לאנגלית.

סוף שבוע טוב, יוני Yonidebest 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Molotov and Stalin.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Molotov and Stalin.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnoc-linguistic map of Afghanistan

Hi Danny. You have deleted the ethno-linguistic map of Afghanistan. The map was published in 1985 by the communist government, which does not exist anymore since 1993. There has not been any licences or copy rights on the map. Neither does the page http://www.hazara.net/ claim any rights for the map. Tājik 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Office_protected

A couple of those articles have been there for a while. Some may no longer need protection. Could you please review them and act or do not act accordingly. :) Cbrown1023 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Doran

Oh, I am sorry, and thanks for the unblock. The old username as well as the edit mirroring that of a user known to be using sockpuppets, with no edit summary (the content of the edit was not the problem, it was other disruptive things). The actual section was under discussion was under on the talk page) made me suspicious, and I was wondering why an accountant would suddenly start editing the Free Republic article, after a period of inactivity. So, overall it was suspicious enough to me, for me to block until confirmation was received. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes me feel much better. ;-) Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Carolyn-WMF

Could you please let the community know in which capacity this user is editing Wikipedia? Is Carolyn acting on behalf of WP:OFFICE, or any other official role? Note that some editors are restoring Carolyn's edits based on the fact that she works for the Wikimedia Foundation. A clarification would be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Were you ever able to find out anything about the Carolyn-WMF edits to the Free Republic page?

Thanks! --BenBurch 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Danny! Thank you for teaching me how to use this.

Big Y Foods

Is Big Y Foods actually office-protected? (It claims to be but isn't listed at WP:OFFICE.) It looks like some anonymous editor just copied the office protection warning from Brian Peppers, but I'm not going to revert back to the prior version (which contained nothing that looks unusual or controversial) without checking with you first.

On a related note, Mindy Kaling, which is office-protected, doesn't show up in Category:Office protected. --Metropolitan90 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't think Big Y Foods is office protected (in fact it wasn't protected at all). Since the IP adding the deletion message (the page was not actually deleted) only had one other edit, which was vandalism, I have reverted the blanking. Prodego ^talk 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This was obviously not a real WP:OFFICE action.--Brad Patrick 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

For the record...

... and image you deleted is back again. 68.39.174.238 07:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mentioned

You are mentioned in a ANI I filed concerning edits made by Carolyn of the WFM on behalf of User:DeanHinnen that is located here. You really ought to consider answering the queries of two Admins and two editors concerning questionable edits and actions by the WMF and a WMF employee made on behalf of a blocked editor spouting false claims, to a hotly constested article, instead of ignoring them, as you did. Cheers.- Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

קצב

!!!איזה נאום

El_C 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rachmana L'tzlan :( -- Avi 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Image:Semen2.jpg

Please return the image that you deleted. The image has been actively debated in the article, and there was a consensus for its usage in that limited context. Deletion of Wikipedia images and articles without discussion, or the following of the established process is completely contrary to how Wikipedia works, and damages Wikipedia immensely. If users and editors thought that you, and any foundation employee could go around and delete whatever they want without following the process that everyone else follows then they will lose confidence that they should have to act in good faith, or treat others fairly also. It is possible that you have good reasons for deleting the image that are not apparent. Had there been a legitimate discussion before you deleted the image, we would know what those reasons were, rather than feeling like you have acted inappropriately.

Actually, OFFICE employees can do whatever they want on behalf of the office. (WP:OFFICE) However, that was not the case here. Cbrown1023 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By "do whatever they want" I think you mean:

• Make official changes based on the authority of Wikimedia Legal Council, on issues related to defamation, privacy, or copyright infringement.
• If they mark the change with the {{office}} ("they" being User:Jimbo or User:Dannyisme) and protect the page.
• "Neither this policy nor actions taken under it override core policies, such as neutrality."

As you say, that was not the case here. Atom 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the semen article we have had discussion about the image for a long time, and came to consensus to use it after some compromise about image placement. You might imagine, that all of those people, perhaps even people who prefered the image to be removed or deleted, feel that the long process of coming to consensus is a farce and waste of time if a foundation employee can wave the whole process aside and delete whatever they want summarily without even a word of explanation. The only explanation you gave was in the edit summary "Cum on now...". All of us participants in Wikipedia do this as a volunteeer effort. Your participation is as a paid employee. One would think that if volunteers can discuss, be civil, and otherwise act professional, that someone acting within the scope of their job ought to be able to do that. My apologies if I seem upset. My voice represents, perhaps, how a great many others might feel about this kind of thing. It isn't the specific image that is the topic of discussion, but the way that deletion without discussion has been handled. Should I, or others assume that any article, any image or any consensus decision within wikipedia can be summarily ignored or removed without any explanation? Atom 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I seemed uncivil. I was trying to explain, from the emotion of having my toes stepped on, how such little things can effect others dramatically. I'm certain that you do a great deal of important work that keeps Wikipedia moving forward. (and I appreciate that) I didn't suggest that you didn't act in good faith. I'm sure that you did act in good faith. My concerns, expressed tersely above, are that when such things occur without explanation it will cause problems. When Jimbo deleted the image in the creampie article, it was the same thing. We did not doubt his authority to do so, or that there was a good reason behind his action, but there was some effort to find out what the problem was, as he put no explanation of his action in the edit summary. Eventually an admin was able to determine that the deletion summary showed a concern based on 2257. A simple explanation in the comment section would have saved a few people some time. The mysterious dissapearance, and then reappearance of an image in the ejaculation article last week, and the summary deletion without discussion of an image in the scrotum article all, perhaps cooincidentally, point in the same direction. If the Wikipedia foundation, or Wikipedia in general wants more stringent standards or policies on sexually explicit images, then please establish that guideline, and follow it like everyone else. (Or let's create a written policy that foundation employees don't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies). (BTW, I point out that the semen image is not a sexually explicit image, but an image of a bodily fluid, on topic in the context it was used.) You will note that there are a number of Wikipedia editors concerned about the same issues, hence the development of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines underway. Regards to you. Atom 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Largescale Abuse of Administrator Power in the Hebrew Wikipedia

שלום דני,

אני משתמש חדש יחסית בויקיפדיה העברית. לאחרונה סבלתי מהתנכלויות חוזרות ונשנות מידי מפעילים, שהטיחו בי עלבונות, מחקו לי דפים, חסמו אותי ולבסוף חסמו אותי לצמיתות. לצערי he:user:דוד שי לא נקף אצבע כדי לעזור לי אלא רק הלהיט את הרוחות. לאחר שעשיתי כל שביכולתי לנסות ליישב את הסכסוך במסגרת ויקיפדיה העברית, לא נותר לי אלא לפנות אליך. אני עושה כן לאחר שהתייעצתי בדבר עם מר David Fuchs מה- AMA של ויקיפדיה האנגלית, שנתן לי את ברכתו.

תיאור הקורות אותי בקצרה:

הכל התחיל כשבתאריך , 13 בינואר 2007 פרסמתי גילוי דעת בדף he:שיחת ויקיפדיה:ערכים מומלצים/קריטריונים לקביעת ערך מומלץ שבו הבעתי את דעתי שהקריטריון "ראוי לבחון אף נקודות ראות יהודיות וישראליות שאינן מופיעות בערך הזר, וזאת בשל העובדה כי רוב קוראיה ועורכיה של ויקיפדיה העברית הם יהודים וישראלים." מיותר וגובל בגזענות\אפליה-דתית. בתגובה כתב לי המפעיל he:user:אלמוג שדברי משולים לנפיחה. כאן עשיתי שתי שגיאות שהן הדבר היחיד שאני מצר עליו בכל השתלשלות המאורעות הזו: כתבתי לאלמוג הודעה תשובה שכותרתה: "מענה לאבו-נפחא", ויצרתי במרחב המשתמש שלי דף שכותרתו: "רשימה שחורה", שבו רשמתי את פרטי התקרית הזו ואת שמו של אלמוג. לא נקפו רגעים מספר ודף זה נמחק ע"י המפעיל he:user:odedee, ואילו המפעיל he:user:Shayakir הפעיל עלי חסימה ל-24 שעות, שמאוחר יותר הורחבה לשבוע ימים על-ידיו ועל ידי המפעיל he:user:pacman. לא עזרה התנצלותי בפני אלמוג, הבטחתי לא לשחזר את דף הרשימה השחורה בשרתי ויקיפדיה ולא עזרה פנייתי לדוד שי בנדון. היה זה לאחר חסימתי שפניתי במצוקתי למר Fuchs, שהיה עד לכל השתלשלות העניין מרגע זה והילך ע"י הדיווחים שהעברתי לו, שכללו בתחילה תרגום מילולי של דפי השיחה הרלוונטיים.

לאחר שהסתיים שבוע החסימה שלי הגשתי בקשה להסרת הרשאות Shayakir ו-pacman, ורציתי גם להגיש תלונה בדף הבירורים כנגד odedee, אלא שתלונתי זו נמחקה שוב ושוב ע"י מפעילים שונים (he:user:טרול רפאים, he:user:גדי ו.) בתירוצים קטנוניים שונים, ולבסוף אף ללא כל תירוץ (ע"י המפעילה he:userסקרלט) (אציין שאחרי כל מחיקה תיקנתי את הבקשה בהתאם להערות המוחק התורן). בנוסף, ההודעות שפריסמתי בלוח המודעות המודיעות לקהילה על פעולותי נגד שלושת המפעילים נמחקו ע"י טרול רפאים בטוענות שווא.

התחלתי לעיין בדפי הארכיון של ויקיפדיה העברית ע"מ לגלות אם יש תקדימים להתנכלות המפעילים כלפי, ונחרדתי לגלות שהתנכלויות כאלה נמשכות כבר לפחות שנה, במידה רבה על ידי אותם מפעילים, ובראשם דוד שי, שהגדיל לעשות והביא להדחת ההגון במפעילי ויקיפדיה אי-פעם, he:user:מלח השמים. גיליתי, למשל, שהמפעילה סקרלט הפעילה כבר לפני שנה הגנה על הערך he:user:גל אמיר שהוא ביוגרפיה של המפעיל אלמוג - הגנה שבתוקפה עד היום. לאחר שביקשתי ממנה הבהרה, ענה לי he:user:eman (היא לא נוהגת לענות לי, הוא מדבר בשמה) שסיבת ההגנה נסיונות השחתה חוזרים של הדף. בדקתי בדף הגרסאות הקודמות של הדף, ומשלא מצאתי כל עדות לכך נאלצתי להסיק, מה שעלה בקנה אחד עם דברים שקראתי בארכיונים, שמפעילים מתעסקים אם רשימת היסטורית העריכה של דפים ללא כל הצדקה ועל דעת עצמם.

היום בבוקר הייתי עד לתקרית שבה מחק דוד שי על דעת עצמו את הערך "אנרוס", שמתאר צעצוע מין, שמשתמש כלשהו תרגם מהויקי באנגלית (Aneros). הערתי לדוד על כך, שלפי מדיניות WikiMedia אסורה כל צנזורה בויקיפדיות השונות, ושיש מספיק סיבות להצדיק לפחות דיון בחשיבותו של הערך, אולם לא נעניתי. עקב כך תרגמתי בעצמי את הערך ושחזרתי אותו. אולם מישהו מחק אותו, ושחזרתי אותו שוב. בנקודה זו נחסמתי לשעתיים ע"י pacman, שהורחבו בסמוך ע"י Harel עד שלבסוף נחסמתי לצמיתות ע"י Yonidebest.

לדעתי משהו רקוב מאוד בממלכת ויקיפדיה העברית - מר Fuchs הגדיר זאת כקנוניה של ממש - והמצב נמשך כך כבר חודשים רבים. לדעתי הסיבה לכך היא שאין איש אוכף שם לא את עקרונותיה הבסיסיים של ויקיפדיה ואפילו לא את הכללים והנוהלים שנוצרו ע"י קהילת הויקי העברית עצמה. המתרחש שם היום הוא עדות לנכונות האימרה "המרחם על האכזרים עתיד להתאכזר לרחמנים". היטיב להביע זאת he:user:Asbl בדף המשתמש שלו לפני כשנה, לפני שפרש. אבקשך לבדוק את הנעשה בויקיפדיה העברית בדיקה יסודית.

בכבוד רב, he:משתמש:איתי_ב.

-Itayb 19:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

אני מקווה שאתה ודני תסלחו לי על ההתערבות הזאת, אבל בתור מי שמצוי במה שקורה בוויקיפדיה העברית, אני מרשה לעצמי להביע את דעתי. לא הייתי מעורב בפרשה המתוארת לעיל, ולפיכך הנתונים היחידים שיש לי הם התיאור שאתה מביא כאן.

אמת, יש בעיה של תרבות דיון בוויקיפדיה העברית. יותר מדי פרשות מהסוג הנ"ל מתפוצצות במקום להיפתר בשקט. זה נושא שנמצא בטיפול. ויחד עם זאת, אתה לא בא בידיים נקיות. ראשית, באת ואמרת בחריפות רבה שאחד הכללים לקביעת ערכים מומלצים גובל בגזענות, בשעה שאין הדבר כך. בשום מקום לא נכתב שזהו התנאי היחיד, ואף לא נכתב שזהו התנאי החשוב ביותר. זהו בסך-הכול עוד שיקול במכלול השיקולים, והוא הגיוני למדי. אכן, רוב דוברי השפה העברית הם ישראלים או יהודים, ולפיכך ערכים הקשורים בישראל או ביהדות מעניינים דוברי עברית יותר משהם מעניינים אחרים. שים לב שלא נכתב רק "נקודות ראות יהודיות" אלא גם "ישראליות", ואתה ודאי יודע שלא כל הישראלים הם יהודים. ערך על הקהילה הצ'רקסית, למשל, יוכל להפוך לערך מומלץ, בין היתר כיוון שהוא עוסק בקהילה שיש לה נציגות מכובדת בישראל.

ההאשמה שלך הביאה לתגובה חריפה ולא-ראויה, אולם במקום לצנן את הרוחות ולהגיב בקור-רוח, הוספת שמן למדורה. אתה עצמך מצר על כך, אבל אילו היית סופג את העלבון שבחסימה ולא ממשיך לתקוף, העניין היה נשכח. כך נוהג אדם שבאמת מצר על מעשיו, ובעצם כך נוהג כל אדם קר-רוח. גם אני חושב שהחסימה שלך הייתה מוגזמת, אבל במקום לתקוף את מפעילי המערכת, היית צריך לנהוג ביתר טאקט.

בעניין מחיקת הערך "אנרוס" - אין צנזורה בוויקיפדיה העברית, אבל יש שיקול דעת מסוים בשאלה אילו ערכים צריכים להופיע ואילו לא. בדרך כלל מתקיים דיון בדף השיחה של הערך, ולעתים קרובות מתקיימת הצבעה על מחיקת הערך. אני לא יודע מה הסיבה לכך שדוד שי בחר למחוק את הערך ללא דיון. בדרך כלל אפשר לסמוך על שיקול הדעת שלו. צעצועי-מין זה דבר נחמד, אבל לא כל אחד מהם עונה על הקריטריונים לקבלת ערך בוויקיפדיה (למעשה, רובם לא). בוויקיפדיה האנגלית יש נטייה להחמיר פחות בקריטריונים, בשעה שבוויקיפדיה העברית מחמירים יותר (ולאו דווקא בנושאים פיקנטיים). הבדלי המדיניות האלה הם לגיטימיים. אתה יכול להעלות את העניין לדיון במזנון של ויקיפדיה העברית, אבל אנא עשה זאת בצורה עדינה ובטאקט.

רבן גמליאל אמר: "במקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש" (אבות, ב, ה). במקרה הזה, נתקלת בתרבות-דיון חלשה, ובמקום לשפר אותה החמרת את המצב. drork 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to support what Itay is saying so he can't be written off as a troll flaunting about with baseless accusations. I was blocked permanently for the reason: "Haham Hanukah" when I am in no way him. Of course, no checkuser was run or anything of the sort to confirm my identity. Reasoning on my talk page has amounted to absolutely nothing except for two responses from (relatively) sympathetic users, not even a response from an administrator. I was permanently banned after creating a Jenna Jameson article which I translated from English (and contained no pictures I might add nor any other content that I can consider offensive). I didn't remember precisely what their rules were regarding articles that have something to do with pornography (the rules are to censor any article that has something to do with pornography except for the one article on pornography). I am not a big fan of pornography however I don't believe I should be perm-banned after adding an article that doesn't abide by the rules (follows all criteria except for the specific ban on pornographic articles which I'm not convinced was properly voted on even after seeing the pages that "prove" this). I might add that this article was deleted right after creation and within 24 hours (I hadn't even made any edits in that period other than contacting the guy who deleted my article who also happens to be the lone bureaucrat on the Hebrew wikipedia). I would also like to note that any reference to the English Wikipedia or how things are done on the English Wikipedia are quickly written off and the actual use of the phrase English wikipedia can cause large antagonism against you by the people who run the Hebrew wikipedia. In addition I'd like to mention that at no time have I been incivil and at no time did I attack any user of the wikipedia project. I'd like to mention that many administrators on the hebrew wikipedia see blocking as a punitive measure rather than an action that is done to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Many users are banned because the admins on he don't feel they possess enough quality to be members of the project (and I'm not talking about vandals, users with poor writing skills or even not so poor writing skills). A last note before I finish would be to say that I truly believe that most if not all of the admins on he are good (if not great) writers and have contributed many great articles to the project, I just feel that they strayed from the original wikipedia values and initiatives. I am putting my full trust and confidence in your judgement as I'm sure you'll see that the he project is completely disconnected from other wiki projects. I'm sure Jimbo would be appalled at what's going on over there if only he could read Hebrew. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

אתם יכולים לפנות אליי. עברנו לא מזמן "משבר חברתי" קטן בוויקיפדיה העברית, ולא הייתי רוצה לזעזע את הספינה שוב עם הצעות לסדר שיחוללו סערה, אבל כיוון שנפגעתם, אני יכול לנסות למצוא דרך לפתור את הבעיה. בעניין ערכים על כוכבי/ות פורנו ואביזרי מין - יש הסכמה (גם אם לא רשמית) שלא מוספים ערכים כאלה לוויקיפדיה העברית. לא מדובר בפוריטניות דווקא, אלא בשאלה האם כל פריט מידע ראוי להיכנס לוויקיפדיה בהיותה אנציקלופדיה, או שיש עניינים בשולי הידע שאינם ראויים להיכלל באנציקלופדיה בכלל ובוויקיפדיה בפרט. אני בטוח שלכל בית בתל-אביב יש סיפור כלשהו, ובכל זאת נכתוב ערך על "מגדל שלום" או "בית הדקל" בנחלת בנימין, ולא נכתוב ערך על בית מספר 5 ב"דרך השלום". בכל מקרה, אין שום טעם לצאת למסע צלב למען ערכים בענייני פורנו. המשתמשים הוותיקים מתייחסים בחשדנות (מוצדקת במידה מסוימת) למשתמש חדש שמתעקש להוסיף ערכים מהסוג הזה. גם אם אתם חושבים שיש לערכים האלה מקום, עדיף להתחיל לכתוב על עניינים קצת פחות פיקנטיים, להפגין רצון טוב, ואז להעלות את סוגיית הערכים על כוכבי/ות פורנו. אפשר לפנות אליי גם כאן, וגם בדף השיחה שלי בוויקיפדיה העברית. drork 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

אני רואה שהצעת להוריד את החסימה שלי ועל כך אני מודה לך. בכל אופן אני מאוכזב מההתנהלות של ויקיפדיה העברית כי הרי נראה לי שדי ברור שאם לא הייתי נאבק בחסימה הזו וכותב הודעה פה בעמוד של דני הייתי נשאר חסום. הבעיה בויקיפדיה העברית היא הרבה מעבר לחסימה כזו או אחרת או איסור על ערכי פורנו. לא כותבים על בית מספר 5 בדרך השלום מכיוון שהוא לא מפורסם (not notable).

בנוגע לערכי פורנו, הוספתי ערך פורנו פעם אחת והוא ישר נמחק ונחסמתי ככה שממש לא "יצאתי למסע צלב למען ערכים בענייני פורנו". אני חושב שיש מקום לכל ערך שהוא נוטאבל באנציקלופדיה העברית, בין אם הוא מתאים לדעות של המפעילים ובין אם לא (ואני מאמין שהויקימדיה פאונדיישן מסכימה איתי). אני כמובן לא הולך להוסיף ערך כגון ג'נה ג'יימסון שוב על-מנת שלא ימצאו תירוץ לחסום אותי. אני לא חובב גדול במיוחד של פורנו אבל אני חובב גדול של חופש הביטוי וג'נה ג'יימסון נמצאת באנציקלופדיות מכובדות מלבד ויקיפדיה האנגלית כך שאין ספק לפי דעתי שמקומה בויקיפדיה. הגישה האליטיסטית של חלק מחברי ויקיפדיה העברית מאוד מטרידה אותי וגם ה"חשדנות המוצדקת" שלהם. בויקיפדיה האנגלית יש משהו שנקרא אסום גוד פיית' ואני לא רואה שום סיבה שבעולם שבויקיפדיה העברית לא יהיה את זה ובמקום אנשים ישר יהיו חשדניים כלפי משתמשים חדשים. "חיפושית" שהיא מפעילת מערכת פה נחסמה תוך כמה דקות מהרשמותה לפני כמה שנים וזה בעצם אומר הכל, ban first, ask questions later. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

הסכמנו בזמנו שדוד שי יהיה זה שיחליט על מינוי מפעילים חדשים, והדבר לא יתקבל בהצבעה. מכיוון שכך, אני חושב שצריך להפקיד בידיו גם את הזכות לשלול סמכות מפעיל, כל זמן שהוא פועל במתחם הסבירות (ואין לי ספק שהוא לא יחרוג ממנו לעולם). שן שש זעם 21:54, 30 נוב' 2004, he:ויקיפדיה:מזנון/פרשת שמעון

ישנם דברים שאי אפשר לקבל, אפילו אם הם מתקבלים בהצבעת דמוקרטית. לבטל את הדמוקרטיה זו דוגמה אחת. עוד דוגמא, במקרה של ויקיפדיה, זה להחיל צנזורה על ערכים. כפי שכתבתי בדף השיחה של דוד שי, ויקיפדיה העברית אולי אינה מחוייבת למדיניות של ויקיפדיה האנגלית, אבל היא ודאי מחוייבת למדיניות אוניברסלית של ויקימדיה:

There are a few rules that all Wikimedia projects must follow: ... Please make a page to explain what Wikipedia is not

meta:Help:How to start a new Wikipedia

בדף What Wikipedia is not כתוב במפורש: "Wikipedia is not censured" .

לגבי כוכבי וכוכבות פורנו. חלקם, וודאי גב' ג'יימסון, מפורסמים בארץ ובעולם לא פחות מכוכבי הוליווד. ה notability שלהם אינו ניתן לערעור. במקרה של ג'יימסון, היא היום הרבה מעבר לכוכבת פורנו. וגם כאשר משתמש כבר יוצר ערך על דמות זניחה, יש לאפשר לו ולאחרים להגן על חשיבות הערך בטרם יימחק.

Itayb 10:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

באופן אישי אני אכן חושב שהמחיקה הייתה פזיזה וראוי היה לנהל דיון יותר ממצה בנושא. דיונים כאלה נערכו, והמקרה הקלאסי הוא הערך על מייקל לואיס. לא כל מה שנחשב notable בעיניי הוויקיפדים דוברי האנגלית נחשב כך גם בעיני הווקיפדים דוברי העברית, וזה לגיטימי. אתה צודק שיש כוכבי/ות פורנו שפרסומם הוא מעבר לעיסוק המקורי שלהם, ואז כתיבת ערך עליהם היא בוודאי מוצדקת. הציטוט שהבאת לעיל הוא כבר לא רלוונטי. מזה זמן רב דוד שי לא קובע לבדו מי יהיו מפעילי המערכת. אני הפכתי מפעיל מערכת לאחר שמשתמש אחר הציע אותי ונערכה הצבעה. לדוד שי היה קול אחד בלבד בהצבעה הזאת. drork 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

מצטער אבל ג'נה ג'יימסון היא נוטאבל בכל קנה מידה, גם בזה של ויקיפדיה העברית. הסיבה למחיקה לא הייתה שהערך לא נוטאבל (אף אחד גם לא טען את זה), הסיבה הייתה שיש כביכול מדיניות של מחיקת ערכים על דברים שקשורים לפורנו. ראיתי את העמוד של "ההצבעה" וראיתי כמה היא הייתה אמינה (רוב המשתמשים שם אמרו שהם לא נגד ערכי פורנו בכללי אלא רק במקרה הספציפי של חכם חנוכה). זה שזה הפך למעין חוק בלי ההצבעה ממש ברורה כמו שצריך זה בכלל לא בסדר וגם אם הייתה הצבעה, אם זה נוגד את מדיניות ויקימדיה אז אין להצבעה שום תוקף כי תכלס הם אלה שיש להם את זכות הוטו. בנוסף, לא ראיתי שום מקום שבו ניתן להציע מועמד לביורוקרטיה או מקום שבו ניתן להציע הסרת ביורוקרט (וזה בכלל לא משנה אם כולם סומכים על דוד שי, אם אין את זה אין שום באלאנס אוף פאוור וטכנית הוא יכול לעשות מה שבא לו). בנוסף, לא ראיתי שום מקום שבו משתמשים יכולים להציע שינוי למדיניות ויקיפדיה העברית (את זה באמת יכול להיות שפשוט פספסתי) ככה שנניח שאני רוצה להציע להוסיף את wp:bite

אז אין לי שום אופציה לעשות את זה. זה ואסום גוד פיית' יכולים להפוך את ויקיפדיה העברית למקום הרבה יותר נעים מאשר שהוא היום. תקרא את דף השיחה שלי בויקיפדיה העברית וכבר תראה את האינטימידציה שעושים לי כי אני עורך תבנית או סה"כ יוצר קיצור דרך לעמוד עזרה\ויקיפדיה. בנוסף, תסתכל על התבנית המדוברת ותראה שלאחר עוד שינוי שעשיתי, מפעיל שחזר בגלל שזה סתם איזה מישהו חדש אז אוטומטית דוחים כל רעיון או שינוי שיש לו לעשות ולאחר מכן מפעיל אחר שינה את זה בחזרה כי סה"כ יש גבול למקובעות של אדם, זה הרי ברור שהתבנית שלי יותר טובה. דרך אגב, תודה רבה על הסרת החסימה. :) אבל אני עדיין חושב שצריך לקרות שינוי במקום ההוא. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 15:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

אני דיברתי על מינוי מפעילי מערכת, לא על מינוי בירוקרטים. דוד שי הוא הבירוקרט מיום הקמתה של ויקיפדיה העברית, ולעת-עתה לא ראינו צורך בבירוקרט נוסף. לא זכור לי שדוד שי כפה את דעתו באיזושהי צורה. כל הפריווילגיות שלו הן טכניות. אדרבא, מי שחסם אותך לא היה דוד שי אלא מפעיל מערכת אחר. למיטב הבנתי, דוד שי לא התערב דווקא מתוך מדיניות שהוא לא מנצל את הפריווילגיות שלו כבירוקרט לענייני מהות, אלא רק לעניינים טכניים. הנחת תום-לב (good faith) היא עניין שיש לשפר בוויקיפדיה העברית. אני לא בטוח שבעניין הזה אנחנו הרבה יותר גרועים מוויקיפדיות אחרות. אני חוזר שוב - אם אתה משתמש חדש, והערך הראשון (או אחד הראשונים) שאתה כותב הוא על כוכבת פורנו, זה מעורר חשד, ואפילו הערך כתוב היטב. אמנם פעולת המחיקה (והחסימה) הייתה פזיזה, אבל אני יכול להבין את החשד בנסיבות כאלה. שינויי מדיניות אתה יכול תמיד להציע ב"מזנון" או ב"פרלמנט". שינויים כאלה נדונים שם כל הזמן. הנחיות מקרן ויקימדיה נלקחות ברצינות, אבל לא שמעתי על הנחיה שאומרת שאוסרת שיקול דעת בשאלת ה"נוטאביליות" של ערכים על פורנו. drork 16:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

הבעיה היא שצריך להיות דף כזה, בין אם רואים צורך לעוד ביורוקרט כרגע או לא. אני מודע לכך שעודדי הוא זה שחסם אותי ואני רק צריך להוסיף שערך הפורנו ממש לא היה הערך הראשון שערכתי, הוא פשוט היה הראשון שערכתי מזה תקופה של כמה חודשים ושלא קיבלתי אף אזהרה (אפילו אם זה נראה חשוד, אף אדמין פה לא היה חושב לחסום מישהו רק על זה ללא אף אזהרה). תתפלא אבל אסום גוד פיית' עובד טוב מאוד פה בויקיפדיה ומישהו שתועה בדרכו ושוכח את זה מיד מזכירים לו. בקשר לתגובה הצינית האחרונה, נראה לי שהבנת למה שהתכוונתי אבל למקרה שלא. לא נראה לי שמישהו הולך לדסקס איתי האם ג'נה ג'יימסון היא נוטאבל או לא כי זה הרי ברור כשמש שהיא נוטאבל, היא נמחקה מכיוון שזה ערך שבאנציקלופדיה העברית "החליטו" (כפי שאמרתי, ראיתי את ה"הצבעה" הזו ולא התרשמתי). ישנה הנחייה מקרן ויקימדיה לשמור על NPOV ומחיקת ערך רק בגלל שהוא קשור איכשהו לפורנו שובר מדיניות זו כבר בעצם המחיקה שלא לדבר על מה שאיתי אמר, ה"נו סנסורשיפ רול". תאמין לי שפורנו זה לא התחום שאני מתמצא בו וגם לא אחד מהחביבים עליי אבל אני עדיין "ילחם" (בצורה סיוילית כמובן) עבור הזכות לכתוב ערך בתחום זה. בנוסף, משהו שלא עלה עד כה, נראה לי שאתם צריכים דחוף לעדכן את מפעילי המערכת שלכם בשינוי ההוראות של קרן ויקימדיה בקשר לתמונות כי ישנם כאלה שלא יודעים שתכלס כמעט כל תמונת שימוש הוגן שיש באנציקלופדיה לא צריכה להיות שם, גם אם זה נופל תחת שימוש הוגן בחוק (כללי הקרן יותר נוקשים מהחוקים במקרים מסוימים). ראה דוגמה, הערך על: Arsenal FC לעומת הערך על he:מכבי חיפה. בערך בויקיפדיה פה אין תמונה של הקבוצה מהאתר הרשמי כי זה לא נופל תחת קריטריון השימוש הוגן של קרן ויקימדיה לעומת הערך הישראלי שבו יש את התמונה מהאתר הרשמי של מכבי חיפה שאינה חופשית.

דרך אגב דני, מצטער שכל זה נמצא בעמוד השיחה שלך ואני מניח שאתה עסוק ולכן לא מגיב אבל נראה לי שיש דבר אחד שכדאי שתגיב עליו והוא העניין של השימוש בתמונות בויקיפדיה העברית שנראה שעדיין לא נמצא בקו אחד עם שאר הפרויקטים של הקרן. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

יכול להיות שהדיון הזה לא צריך להיות בדף השיחה של דני, אם כי אני לא יודע בשלב זה לאן כדאי להעביר אותו. בעניין התמונות, דני כבר פנה אליי בנושא, ואני העברתי את העניין הלאה בוויקיפדיה העברית. הנושא נמצא בטיפול, וחלק ניכר מעבודת ניפוי התמונות הבעייתיות כבר נעשה. אתה יכול וצריך לסמן תמונות שאתה חושב שהן בעייתיות, אבל אין צורך להאיץ באנשים. הנושא הזה נמצא בטיפול מתמיד כבר כמה שבועות. בוויקיפדיה העברית יש הרבה פחות משתמשים מאשר בוויקיפדיה האנגלית, ולפיכך העניינים מתנהלים לאט יותר.

לגבי ההערה שלי - היא לא הייתה צינית בכלל. יש פה עניין של הבדלי תרבות, שהם לגיטימיים בעיניי, ולדעתי הם עולים בקנה אחד עם המדיניות של הקרן. הכללים שקובעים מה ראוי לערך ומה לא אינם אוניברסליים. היחס לפורנוגרפיה בקרב דוברי עברית הוא הרבה יותר מסויג מהמקובל בקרב דוברי אנגלית (ועדיין הרבה פחות מסויג מאשר בקרב דוברי ערבית, למשל). מדיניות החלוקה לערכים ושאלת ה"נוטאביליות" שונה במידה ניכרת בין ויקיפדיה העברית לוויקיפדיה האנגלית. אין לזה קשר לצנזורה. סביר להניח שערך "תעשיית הפורנו בארצות הברית" שבו יש פרטים גם על כוכבי/ות פורנו יתקבל יותר באהדה מאשר סדרת ערכים על כל כוכב/ת כזה בנפרד. ועדיין אני מסכים איתך שמחיקת הערך בלי דיון הייתה פזיזה. drork 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

לשיחה זו יש המשך בדפים [82][83][84][85][86].

RfA

No offense, but.. really? I was a bit surprised to see your name on the support side. Like I said, I don't mean to offend, but my curiosity is perked. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo contest

Danny, I know that you have previously run contests on wikipedia and I was interested in setting up a contest for the best pictures personally taken by wikipedia members that had been released into the public domain and added to important pages (such as core topics or featured articles) within a period of time (such as 2007). The winner would be selected by a panel of wikipedia individuals (perhaps administrators) that had some expertise in photography. The winner would be awarded a barnstar and given some amount of money (like $100 which I would put up). I was wondering if you would be interested in helping to set this up with me. Remember 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Now that I know about the picture of the year contest going on at Wikipedia Commons, that pretty much solves my issue. After it is finished this year, I'm going to see if we can create some amount of cash prize for the winner. Thanks for the response though. Remember 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling

Hi there. You protected the article about Mindy Kaling in October 2006 as a WP:OFFICE action. Given that October is quite a while ago now, and not much has happened to the article since, is the protection still necessary? --Conti|✉ 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use madness (now more than ever)

Hi. Remember how last year we were talking about creating Knesset and IDF fair use equivalent templates. Well, now we are at the point that the Knesset image I used for Haim Ramon (the same one used on the Hebrew wiki) was challenged. So I got another one from the MFA, with a fair use permission link. But that was challenged, too (I deleted it in dismay). Apperently, we are now at the point that we are prohibited from displaying images of a living person that merely shows what they look like — whether that person is a (former) Justice Minister or borderline-notable person. But does the policy really have to be so rigid? I don't think it make sense, and so I, ineptly, attempted to callenge it. Am I wasting my time, though? בברכה, El_C 07:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still like to hear from you

Hello Danny,

I'd still appreciate it, if you reacted in some way to the message i left to you on your talk page on 19:25, 29 January 2007 (now in archive #6).

Thanks, Itayb 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read your Yiddish user page

We have some great news FINELLY--yidi 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Porchesia

The following is hereby presented to you, with all due respect. Mordillo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.117.149.21 (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello Danny. Can you please help me--it is VERY urgent that I speak with you it will only take one second. There is something extremely underhanded going on and an editor is trying to ruin my internet rep very quickly. I want to be completely removed (name). Please respond!User:KK 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller

Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit[87]. Already it's been vandalized. I also think someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edits. I posted to AN/I but I thought you might have a more direct link. I'm surprised this isn't front office protected. --Tbeatty 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Legal threats and WP:OFFICE

Hi Danny. I'm not sure who to turn to in this case, but since you deal with legal threats constantly and you have WP:OFFICE power.

I have recently responded to a complaint at WP:AIV about User:Notinsane in regards to disruption at the Geoffrey Giuliano article. Investigating the request, I found this legal threat in one of the edit summaries. As a result, I indef. blocked the user as per WP:NLT. Should there be an Office protect because of the possible legal issues with this user/article? --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. The current draft design for the barnstar incorporates the Wikipedia Commons logo. Please let us know if there is a problem with this usage. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation of the week

Hello Danny,

If I remember correctly you were one of the initiators of m:Translation of the week (the first Hebrew translation was done by you). Could you check on the project now? It is deteriorating because of the way articles are chosen. This week article, for example, is Iwasawa theory. If you understand its contents than you should read no further, but if you are like me, which can't read even it's Hebrew translation, than you will probably agree that a revision in the voting system is necessary. This article does not adhere to the criterion of "easy to translate". Three weeks ago the article that was chosen was Glasnost which already had 28 interwikis, which means that it was already translated (or originally written). 4 weeks ago the article that was chosen was Numeration system of the Urnfield culture which got only 3 translations because it was uninteresting and it was useless without also translating Urnfield culture .

Regards, Avihu 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

phone call

why did you talk in hebrew to me and saying you cannot speak english in hebrew and in spanish. And when I talked to you in spanish stopped talking? Why did you whistle on the phone? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What is gemcho and tsukaretshe? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Illustrated Wikipedia

Sorry to bother you again, but could you take a look at this, which has left me rather distressed and unreasonable. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Basketball photo

I read your post about the basketball photo on foundation-l about Image:Dennis Johnson Lipofsky.jpg I do not like fairuse because it is unfree. But I am not sure if this photo is a good example. First, it is watermarked. Second, I am not sure that the photographer really wanted to release it as "free". See his first post to the Commons administrators noticeboard [88]. Ok, this was too late, but I doubt he will contribute more photos. But I think there are certainly other photographers who could illustrate the point by voluntarily uploading "free" images if there weren`t any (fairuse photos) before in the articles. Greetings, Longbow4u 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andreas Katsulas.jpg - a better example, a really free celebrity photo, properly formatted, ready to use, with additional infos as to the place and date of creation and author. Why should this be impossible for basketballers? Longbow4u 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling

Has the controversy regarding her article died down enough to end the perm protection yet? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)