User talk:Dbiv

Ron Davies

Please follow Wikipedia Policy and take this up with the Administrator Fernando Rizo if you disagree with my edits as he has permitted them.

RfC on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

In endorsing the summary written by Jguk, I saw your comment:

• Regret the way Lulu has responded to this questioning of his actions. Dbiv 09:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yours is the only name I see among the endorsers of a disinterested editor. At least I don't remember seeing lots of flames from you on the MoS style survey. So I suspect you picked up a wrong sense of the RfC from your reading of it in isolation.

Basically Jguk's RfC is the latest in a long line of dirty tricks by him and by Jtdirl. All kinds of misuse of the administrative procedures of WP to carry on a vendetta (with no concern for improving WP itself). So if your comment reflects the fact I don't take the RfC seriously, you are utterly correct. It's a bad joke by an annoying little child—sort of on the order of those weak-A/high-B college students I used to teach who were certain they knew everything in the world. It's a little bit cute when you are the professor; but less so on WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:27, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've reinforced my feelings. Despite having the odd run-in with JgUK (we are on the opposite side of politics in Britain), I don't support the idea of a policy against having styles of address in article titles, and I thought the survey (when I eventually found it, after it had closed) was very confusing. It certainly didn't show a consensus to remove styles of address, and I think that trying to force through this policy, while bound to be contentious, has not been pursued entirely correctly. The issues raised in the RFC are legitimate ones and I can't see any abuse of WP procedures, certainly not along the lines of WP:POINT. Given that it raises a legitimate issue a flippant response seems to me inappropriate. Dbiv 21:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, it's certainly your vote to sign. But an RfC is really not the place to rehash the MoS debate, which is all Jguk is using it for. You are more than welcome to hold whatever opinion you like about what the MoS should and shouldn't say—it doesn't even sound like I particularly disagree with you (I mainly just don't want the use of styles nominally mandated, but still randomly used).

The "behavior" that Jguk claims to want to redress is a dozen or more distinct things I did on a dozen different pages. I'm not about to go through each individual one to explain it. In a few cases I indeed acted impulsively or out of annoyance (usually at Jguk's bad behavior; but I'm not going to be so childish as to start a spurious RfC about it). In most of them, I acted rightly. But an RfC is supposed to be about one issue, not "everything in Lulu's edit history that Jguk can construe negatively if presented selectively." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:38, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Image:Charleslatham.jpg

The image Image:Charleslatham.jpg has no source, please could you provide one Zeimusu | (Talk page)

Same goes for Image:Parmoor.jpg. If you need help, tell me. Superm401 | Talk July 5, 2005 03:54 (UTC)

It's somewhat difficult to determine whether it's copyrighted, since it was made after 1923(by one year, darn it!) but I would guess that if it isn't, it's pretty close. I also think fair use is a valid claim here. It aids educational purposes and it's difficult for someone to argue you're decreasing their earnings potential by publishing the photo. I'll add a fair use rationale. Thanks for the info. Superm401 | Talk July 6, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

Selhurst and company

Good job with the honorable H. Rochester Sneath - Skysmith 09:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for putting Robb Wilton into English - I had intended to return to it myself but you beat me to it. Paul Tracy

Thanks Dbiv

Thanks for your support on my Adminship request. Seabhcán 09:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dbiv

You removed this line ... which peaked when Blair was taken ill during an award ceremony on the village green at Linton, West Yorkshire. Nonetheless ... from the second paragraph of health problems. That sentence was initially added by an IP user, but it looked right to me.

Posted the above on the Talk:Tony Blair page, then actually looked at what the IP had done, and it was mostly vandalism. Are you sure that's not actually right, though? Proto 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Tony Blair had been taken ill during an award ceremony, I think it would have been noticed at the time and mentioned in the press. It wasn't. It also seems extremely unlikely that the Prime Minister should be present at an award ceremony in a small village to which he has no connection (Linton is near Wetherby). I suspect a linkspam, to be honest. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 16:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi dbiv. In response to your query regarding this information, I was on the security provisioning team for this event and remember it only too well since due to the health situation at the time we were under instruction to have a medical team on standby 'behind the scenes' on a just-in-case basis - i.e. we did not expect it would be required. In the event, it was required but was not available and things became very unpleasant for several people concerned, hence I recall the experience very well. (Unsigned contribution from 212.248.232.34)

I think we need a bit more than that. As a matter of fact I know where Linton is (having been brought up in Leeds and Scarborough and travelling between the two). Why was the Prime Minister at this small and, though I love it dearly, not very important village? Surely a Prime Ministerial visit would have been covered in the local press (the Wetherby News, the York Evening Press, or the Yorkshire Evening Post). Please give the date on which this visit occurred. As it stands this information is totally unsourced and not particularly believable - I refuse to believe that it would have gone un-noticed by the national press and 24-hour TV news stations, for example. Tony Blair is a Featured Article which means it is supposed to exemplify the best of Wikipedia. It would hardly be that if it had such an unreferenced claim in. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 13:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi David, thank you for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi David, thank you for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

Great, thank you. I'm assuming you are familiar with the references you added and they substantially verify the material in the article. Otherwise it's not quite right to add them as a reference. Thanks for your efforts. - Taxman ^Talk 14:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed you used rollback against Ruy's perfectly valid edit on the Molotov article. Please don't use rollback against anything except vandalism. Using it in a content dispute is an abuse of admin powers. Everyking 01:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could direct me to this policy as I could not find it. Using the rollback link is no different to the type of revert that any user can do, save for the fact it only involves one click, and that's hardly a fundamental difference, is it? The closest I could get to this policy you claim to exist was a warning to explain reverts. I was going to explain this one (that Ruy's version was more POV than the previous) but as it was gone midnight I went to bed instead. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 12:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Art of Invention Marketing

User:Mahiconsultant has now blanked the page again since your last revert. I reverted it back, but I'd suggest going ahead with banning him. --Idont Havaname 23:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi David! Thanks for supporting my adminship nomination, and for kind words too! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

September Dossier et al.

Do you really think Sadam was ever an immediate threat to this country, or even a significant one?Sandpiper 23:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I think he is or was, is neither here nor there. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 08:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is exactly the point. From NPOV view, it inevitably colours your perspective and must be considered a negative. Though I suspect you are very good on this topic, which is a definite plus. But also from an encyclopedic point of view, the opinions of those directly involved or most informed is in itself a statistic worth reporting.

But I suspect your opinions are rather close to mine. I imagine that when he embarked on this war he rather hoped that it would have reached a successfull outcome by now, or at least a view of light at the end of the tunnel. What he might have feared was losing the election because of a disastrous war. But that timebomb is still flying through the air. What he has had to survive is the loss of trust caused by the war propaganda which has been attributed to him. How much did he anticipate that?81.7.59.128 15:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)Sandpiper 15:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (sorry, thought it was logged in.)

Tony Blair

yep, that sort of correction I can agree with. It does not say whether he agreed with his advisors.81.7.59.128 17:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)(sandpiper, seems to be losing me when I change windows)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Harold Davidson, 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.

Question...

Please see the comments at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Davidson

Found you at last

Ah, Betty, so this is where you hang out? Adam 06:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi David. Thanks for considering me as an admin. I've never really thought about becoming one, but I suppose I could work on anything that people list under "Oppose" if I don't make it this time. So, yes, please do. :-) Thanks again Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 01:06, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi David. I just wanted to say thanks again for my nomination and the vote :-) Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) July 5, 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Causes célèbres

I am not sure how one can apply Admiral Byng's experience to this community perhaps it encourages those of us who put less effort int watching the deletion debates to participate ore actively. I would rather edit and contribute content though! Regards--AYArktos 28 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)

I for one would like to see the category reinstated :) As, apparently, did half or so of the undeletion-debate voters. I think that if you publicize a request for the category -- perhaps via the Pump and/or on the wikipedia-l mailing list, you could get it reinstated; a lot of sensible people don't visit CfD. I also think that a 2-week period for CfD may make sense... since the deletions are so difficult to undo. Cheers, +sj + 3 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Dennis Miller

Good luck reverting. It being a Saturday, that character has all day to keep putting back his inane comments. He must check the Miller article 100 times a day, when he can, to keep doing it. There is only so much disk space. I've already complained to an admin User:Joy_Stovall about it, and about all they can do right now is put him on the nutcase list. Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Talrias' RFA and quiz I made :)

Hiya Dbiv, thanks for your vote and comment on my RfA. :) I thought that you might be interested in this quiz about UK politics which I made. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Template:BioCOTWvoter--Falphin 17:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW: Winter of Discontent

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - Winter of Discontent. Cheers -- Joolz 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA and Nigger

I made no such implication. kmccoy (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 7

You said you have weak support for proposal 7 because "This is a very specialized set of useless articles and I doubt many admins are going to have this criteria in mind when doing new article patrol, but I don't believe it's dangerous." In this you say that you have a doubt that admins would have this criteria in mind when they delete articles. Therefore, i think that this proposal is very dangerous because admins would have criteria for deleting legit RPG characters that would classify under these guidlines. Especially well-written articles like Template:FALink (Legend of Zelda) and Cloud Strife. I strongly eurge you to please change your vote and oppose this proposal. Until the wording is made less ambiguious so that well written articles that that i named and many others like it may not be destroyed. --ZeWrestler 13:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• In reply: Thank you. --ZeWrestler 14:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen

I would suggest you report Germen for vandalism... previous experience on the Islamophobia page (which he got protectred) has shown he won't stop untill stopped by an admin. I have reported him for a breach of the 3RR. Axon 10:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am an admin. HTH. David | Talk 10:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Axon 10:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

He now appears to be vandalising my 3RR on the 3RR page. Axon 11:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Making RfC for Germen

I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Germen is disputing his block for vandalising the VfD, claiming you acted against Wikipedia policy. I thought you might like to contribute to the discussion on the draft page and clarify the issue. Axon 10:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've completed the draft of the RfC. If you could review it to ensure you still endorse it I will publish it ASAP. Axon 16:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world

Dbiv,
On your comment: "Note that my dislike for this sort of classification would be allowable on Meta," I think that your dislike is allowable here! What sort of wiki would we have when we start banning dislike?
Tongue Firmly In My Cheek,
brenneman^(t)(c)
10:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your revert

I note you reverted my edit (which I would like to discuss with you at Talk:Cheadle_by-election,_2005. I believe rollback is only meant to be used to revert vandalism, you've been warned about this before, I note. The reason for that is you must actually explain your reverts, using rollback to make them is not appropriate therefore. -- Joolz 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I did explain in a note added to the article immediately afterwards. You are wrong about rollback. Although it was intended as an anti-vandalism tool, there is nothing which makes its use for changing inappropriate non-vandalism article contributions illegal. Search through policies and you will find nothing which says it may not be used for this. Rollback is exactly the same as editing an old version of the page, changing nothing and saving it - which any editor can do, so it is not an abuse of admin privileges either. Please do not add bogus and misleading percentage change figures which assume that parties not standing in an election did stand but got no votes at all. David | Talk 11:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Image sources

Hello Dbiv, I would like to know if you could provide sources for these images that you have uploaded: Image:Arthurhenderson.jpg and Image:Jameskeirhardie.jpg. I have uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons and I suspect that I will be asked to provide sources for them or they may have to be deleted, which would be a shame. I'm new to Wikimedia Commons and I didn't think enough before uploading them. I've been translating some articles about British political history for the Swedish Wikipedia and I wanted some images for them. /Nicke L 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick answer! /Nicke L 21:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

T Dan Smith

Wow. I grew up in Newcastle, and knew the vague outline, but I never knew all that. Nice article. Thanks :) Telsa 13:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The bible

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Kaine800

Hello. You are an intelligent man who is trying to keep wikipedia sensible and honest for the general users. I appologise for my childish behaviour, and hope you can forgive my immaturity and stupidity. After all, i am a tenor, and we with high voices have never been amoung the most mentally virile tiers of society. (unsigned from Kaine800)

RfA for Germen

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

POV check

Thanks for the polite reminder. I'm adding a comment to Talk:List of political epithets. --Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Helen Gandy as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić

You voted in the VfD for Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić. I believe that this article was deleted without a clear consensus, and have nominated the article for undeletion. If you would like to contribute to the VfU discussion, please follow the link above. Thanks for your time! Pburka 00:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC

While I do not know what the GNAA members do in real life, I wrote about two members of the GNAA, mainly the main figures rolffle and timecop. I will add more if they seem to be major members of the GNAA, maybe some minor ones. I also added a few more things. Is there anything else you want me to add before you wish to support the article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Former Students CFD

I see you have emptied Category:Former students of St Catharine's College before the discussion was closed. Since the result was no consensus Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27, the default is keep. Please re-populate the category. Thanks. --Kbdank71 14:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh do come off it. It's an obvious mistake and I'm not going to do anything. David | Talk 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge alumni categories

Ok, I think I will put this together later today. However, Category:Lists of people by university affiliation uses "people" rather than "alumni", so I imagine some votes will suggest that. Also, there are few categories of alumni in general, so it will also receive some "listify and delete all" votes. Interestingly, there are only 23 members (apart from the Footlights) in Category:Former students of Cambridge University. I'll check if the other 8 cats (or is it 9?) do in fact exist and add them to the mix. I will also include the parent cat.

Do you think we should use "...of Cambridge University" or "...of the University of Cambridge"? -Splash 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA

Hi, Thanks for voting on my RfA. Having been elected, I hope to justify your faith in me. Thanks again. --Ragib 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW: Communications in the United Kingdom

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - Communications in the United Kingdom. Thanks Secretlondon 09:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

William Joyce

I had him down as the last man executed for treason. Who followed him? CustardJack 13:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a very common mistake, made in many reputable reference books. Theodore John William Schurch, who was hanged the next day, was the very last. See [2]. David | 13:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for that. This information is very rare. In every report on the recent threat to try Muslim leaders for treason, they have referred to Joyce as the last. It might be worth you looking out for these and changing them on wiki, as there are legions of references to Joyce being the last. It might even be worth putting a note in the Joyce article, referring to Schurch by name. I thought "penultimate" was a mistake or a typo, and so will others no doubt.Jmc29

Googled correction in Dilpazier Aslam article

It's not appropriate to use this form of words

It is in fact more than appropriate to use this form of words in Wikipedia, particularly as the second line of Wikipedias own definition says 'Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.

Wikipedia is intended to be a forward looking information source, open to all. Although there are clear guidelines as to how articles should be constructed, there is no intent that Wikipedia becomes unnecessarily stuffy from either its creators or its vibrant community, that is the preserve of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and those it is replacing.

The American Dialect Society chose the verb to google as the most useful word of 2002 for good reason, it is an efficient (allows the usage of less words) and precise verb. Three years on, which is an age in the evolution of worldwide English, the word is in universal usage.

To remove this from an posting indicates a lack of research (not having read Wikipedia's own articles on googled and neologism), a mistaken understanding of the current status of the word googled and a misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia.

Please re think this kind of unnecessary correction as it sends out the wrong message to other users.

Thanks for your support on the autism FAC!

Thanks! Its now a Featured article. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Just a note to say thanks for the support on my adminship nomination - it's flattering to gain the support of prolific contributors. Happy editing, Slac speak up! 21:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge alumni category renaming

I have finally gotten around to setting up the umbrella rename on these cats from "former students" to "alumni". Please call by CfD when you get the chance (and excuse the rogue apostrophe in my section title there!). -Splash 19:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Newbury by-election, 1993

Hey there, I was wondering what the source was for the change from 'William O Board' to 'Bill Board' was? The source for William O Board was [3] (which I should have referenced on the page) Thanks -- Joolz 15:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill Board was quite a well-known dissident Conservative in Berkshire in the late 1980s (he stood in Windsor and Maidenhead in the 1983 and 1987 elections). David | Talk 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for catching that. I can't believe I forgot to sign. siafu 00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well actually you did in your vote, but it got split off from the comment so I thought I would add it to the comment as well in case someone thought it came from an anon. David | Talk 00:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, well, you still fixed my sloppiness and deserve a thank you. siafu 00:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for being reasonable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 19:35

Brian0918's behaviour

[4] [5] [6] [7]. Yet you only see two reverts? The forth edit simply changed one word to get around 3RR. He also lied when he said that the forth edit was "attempt to organize the articles according to the talk page". He has (perhaps unknowingly) lied on Talk:GNAA and simply ignores it when this is pointed out to him. He was asked once on his talk page [8] to respond to Talk:GNAA#Summary_of_my_remarks_to_Brian0918, and twice in GNAA edit summaries [9], yet he is still reverting without explanation. I find his behaviour to be unacceptable and I hope you are not simply doing things in his favour because he is an "admin buddy".

The first is not a revert but an edit. It is the version to which he reverted in the next two edits. The 3RR does not cover a different edit which is substantially a revert, only a full revert. On the third revert it is acceptable to warn an editor that they are not allowed to revert again. One cannot "unknowingly lie" as the definition of lie includes the fact that the liar must know that what they are saying is untrue. There have been no edits to GNAA since it was protected. I also note that no compromise seems to have been attempted by those who disagree with Brian0918's edits, such as including the art gallery lower in the page. Finally, I can't remember running into Brian0918 before on anything; I simply reacted when he emailed me about his block, which anyone is entitled to do; on looking into it I found that the block had been wrongly applied. David | Talk 08:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I see three reverts:

The first:

Revision as of 04:33, 19 August 2005

Brian0918 (Talk | contribs)

Reverted edits by 70.177.59.42 to last version by 200.162.247.13

The second:

Revision as of 14:40, 19 August 2005

Brian0918 (Talk | contribs)

Reverted edits by 193.77.153.149 to last version by Golbez

The third:

Revision as of 16:52, 19 August 2005

Brian0918 (Talk | contribs)

Reverted edits by 193.77.153.149 to last version by Brian0918

And a forth edit that only changed one word from the version he was previously reverting to (cf. the others), which I assume he changed to get around 3RR, using a false excuse in the edit summary:

Revision as of 17:55, 19 August 2005

Brian0918 (Talk | contribs)

organized by notability

If you check very carefully you will notice that two versions which he reverted include the gallery, only in a different order.

I believe he lied, but included the possibilitity that it might have been a misunderstanding, since I cannot know what goes on in his mind (and he is not saying), hence the perhaps unknowingly in parenthesis.

The only part of my statement which you challenge concerns the 'first revert'. This is not a revert because it changed back to a version outside the 24-hour period. It's an edit. David | Talk 09:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

(I have taken the liberty of fixing your reply's indentation to make it more readable)

Please excuse my ignorance of the English language, but are you trying to say that a revert to a version older than 24 hours is not a revert? Care to show me where it says that? I see three obvious reverts, and one edit that is basically also a revert with one word changed and a fraudent, misleaing edit summary. All within 24 hours. Are we looking at the same history page?

You also failed to address the the other point, namely that twice he reverted despite the gallery being on the list - an attempt at compromise he blatantly ignored.

All the reverts must take place in a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter what the first edit summary says. The other point you make is not a matter for me. The block was wrongly applied and I am not going to discuss this any further on this page. David | Talk 09:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the fourth edit did not only change a word. It added this second line:

+	*Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, the National Gallery of Ancient Art in Rome, Italy.

...which was Brian's preferred version. I also think it's a bit weird to say that a sysop with 12,000 edits needs to be warned about the three revert rule, as if he doesn't know it. Still, as you say, there has been no editing since I protected this page, so I'm leaving this issue alone for the time being. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

One VFD entry for multiple articles

Hi, I recently nominated a bunch of interrelated pages for VFD but I wasn't sure about the best way to do it. I asked if anyone knew how to make one entry to cover multiple articles and I was told to ask you. It's not that important but I was just hoping there was some simpler way to have the VFD notices on multiple pages link to one VFD page, which would then be listed at the daily VFD page. Is there a Wikipedia page that covers this, or a template? Thanks a lot, --TheMidnighters 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)