Jump to content

User talk:David D./Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

Replies

[edit]

Just came to tell you I replied to your question. Reply


Hey this is Bobby Birch, and Ive already spoken with "Inspector 34" or whatever he calls himself, and please stop deleting my material! I am serious. Just stop. Its an article on an Alaskan school! Give me a break, it means nothing to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybirch (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user info

[edit]

Response here





































S TOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP changing my page fool! leave the grace page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.152.26 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

--117.193.98.33 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)== Article on Fubra ==[reply]

Hi David,

Regarding this article that you have moved: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Paulmaunders/Fubra

I created the Fubra Limited article as I noticed there were some other existing pages on wikipedia about sites we (Fubra) own, and so I thought it would make sense to create a page about our company and link these articles in.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/OSx86 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/House_Price_Crash

I thought it would be useful to readers to be able to follow the link where our name was mentioned to get some background information on us.

I have read the relevant wikipedia policies but I still think the creation of a page on Fubra by me is justified.

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable.

  • Although it was written about a company I am involved with, I think I have written the article from a neutral point of view.
  • I have tried to be "encyclopedic" in the sense that I have writtnm about Fubra as broadly as possible, but I must stress that it is very much a work in progress.
  • The majority of the facts are 3rd party verifiable, but certain historical details are only known to Brendan and myself personally (such as how we came up with the idea for a particular site). I included these details as I thought they made the article more interesting, and I have seen similar references in other wikipedia articles permitted.

I am happy to go through the article and make sure that any Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has a reliable source, as per the Wikipedia policies.

Sources

More on the Fubra article - proof reading

[edit]

Hi David, I have added in some references. Could you have a look over what I have done so far and offer your opinion on which specific bits you would keep and which bits you removed. Thanks in advance! Paul and VZ Sirajudeen

Re:Copyvio of Battle of Marion

[edit]

Give me some time, please. Can you remove the notice?

Redmarkviolinist (talk)Editor Review 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, only 1.5 sections had plagiarized content in them. So do I still have to do a temp. page? Or can I just redo those sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmarkviolinist (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sooooo much for saving that on a temp page. ---Redmarkviolinist (talk)Editor Review 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please move it as long as you get my recent purging. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do a B-class article checklist for it? I think it is a B-class, but I'm not sure. Ty --Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates

[edit]

Hi David,

See Wikipedia:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking for information on why we link dates. --Slashme (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page it says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " So why is it advantageous to link these access dates? It gives the impression there is something useful at the other end, like a way back archive link or such. It just wastes peoples time linking to a page that is not informative. David D. (Talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I pointed to that article is that it summarises the reasons for linking dates, including the fact that linked dates are formatted according to user preferences. YMMV. --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the month is spelled it does not matter which order the days months and years are in. Or am I missing something here? David D. (Talk) 09:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning of user:124.182.59.28

[edit]

Hi. I think your recent warning to this IP was a bit harsh, as it was the first message he recieved and you wrote 'Quit the vandalism please. This is your only warning' I've also noticed you have done it to another user as well, user: 122.109.234.37‎ . Try to calm down a bit, because what you have been saying is the equivelent of a level 4 warning. Also, you can find a list of warning templates here so you don't have to write them out longhand.

thanks, cf38talk 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:vandalism

[edit]

Well, I see what you mean but I think the link you gave me was no-way a level 4 warning unless the vandal had been warned before. If it was his first warning, I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}}. Also, I reccommend copying and pasting the warning templates from here to save time. If you have the Firefox browser, you could use a program called Twinkle. I use it, and I can make about 30 edits a minuite! It has an automatic system which allows you to warn, revert, tag and report in seconds! I reccommend it.

thanks, cf38talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a description of it from it's Page:

Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions but I don't go after vandal enough to warrant a tool, I just warn when they hit things on my watch list. Did you see the three IP's vandalizing together? That level four was for cumulative edits. I'm not too keen on the templates so I tend not to use them, they make it look like a robot is warning you. David D. (Talk) 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas

[edit]
Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]













Thanks

[edit]

Yes, I’m mired in Christmas dinner leftovers at the computer here. :) I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

[edit]

David, would you like to join in on the Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. At present our feedback is productive; however, there has been none in attendance that seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. Join in ... I have become use to the abuse; especially if it will lead to a better article. [[1]]. I'm sure you don't remember; but you are the one that advised me to open an account --- over a year ago---- so it is your fault that I spent way to much of my life on the article in the first place! The evidence is the top of my discussion page. Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sports Results

[edit]

Hi there! I just thought I'll let you know, I have joined your WikiProject Sports Results. I'll try to help you as much as I can and have been already contributing to swimming results from last year's Aquatic championships and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've also taken the libery to restucture your participants list and create a userbox for the project.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Sports Results.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

[edit]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oveview

[edit]

David, I think it disappeared as a consequence of spacing and formating so time ago. The concern was over clutter if I remember. I don't recall any strong discussion one way or another on the issue. The template seems to be basically been displaced by the "portal" template. I would rather have the biology portal at the bottom and the summary in its place in that it did a good job and was never a source of criticism. I think you would get support for its return. Anything to do with format or spacing fall out of my jurisdiction / skills! I think there is an "experiment page" somewhere in which I played a little with editing it. I'll see if I can find it.--Random Replicator (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re: I hope.....

[edit]

.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Perhaps I should have just gone ahead and done that myself, even. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prions

[edit]

I didn't say they weren't, merely that the reference was off-topic! The section in question didn't mention prions, and appeared to be entirely about trans-generational methylation/chromatin effects.

Chees, Joe D (t) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, i was just going from your edit summary that I saw pop up. David D. (Talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

[edit]

(Sigh) I new it was going in that direction; there is plenty of blame to share here. I must rethink the use of humor; no damn body gets my jokes. Will this hurt us?--Random Replicator (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, at least I'd hope it would be viewed as a minor disagreement rather than a deal breaker. The written word is a mine field when trying to resolve a dispute. I usually try to tread very carefully or leave before i say something too bad, usually someone breaks down before i do which is the only reason i might seem to avoid similar arguments. In my experience any alienation will make compromise impossible give an inch or two and take mile seems to work more often than not. I understand it's hard to give anything sometimes but it's the only way to gain any trust, assuming the other editor is genuinely trying to improve the article, rather than POV pushers. In this case I see no reason to assume it was not a genuine attempt to improve the article, so its a shame it ended that way. David D. (Talk) 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, lets see if we can come to an agreement of the inclusion of that statement and then we can seek the best supporting document on the actual number. 95 or 98 the implication of scientific support is accomplished either way. I added a version three; blending of sorts. Do you think there is a general support for this? --Random Replicator (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the help on the template--User:Angel David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

It seems Filll misrepresented both of us in that case. I'm not sure I "get" the profound implication of your changes (I'll take a second and probably third look) but I doubt they could made the article any "worse" in terms of my relevance to my objection, lol. However, I'm not sure where this leaves my attempts to find a compromise with some of the editors. I'm tempted to ignore it and plough on. I don't care if my efforts are not appreciated or not accepted, but I'm not happy with denigrated. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing profound, I just moved stuff around. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my last post here --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, that sounds like a good plan. I'll put it on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you did not take my comments as a criticism of you? As far as my edits, I was just taking the scattered "controversy" links and consolidating them at the end in one place. Now I am considering the section in the evolution article that you linked to on the FAR and considering if such a section might improve this article or not. I'll give you rationale when I thought some more. My opinions can be a bit of a moving target so bear with me. :) David D. (Talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not thrown in the towel yet; if we have reached the wall --- give me heads up so I can stop. Otherwise I'll be attempting to make a statement on the social controversy and contrast to the number that I regret losing. (Although I've always known and perhaps taken delight in its placement in the first section). --Random Replicator (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we're far from the wall and our efforts, your efforts, are paying off. Even if it stays the same, we at least looked seriously at the issue. Thanks for your efforts, you will deserve this FA if it comes to it. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David I think we are there; go ahead and commit to one. If you could then create a new section on the talk page and carefully place it there, exactly as it should be written, then I'll scream out in its support and maybe we can get it in the article before FA closes! Thanks so much for your help! --71.77.211.77 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) RR sorry in a hurry!!![reply]
Didn't mean in a hurry to get it done! I was in a hurry to get to supper. There are a few commentaries on the "Sand boxs" discussion page over the placement. Also, when you xfer it could you make a note that it was heavily discussed on the page; otherwise it may be get buried with all the others. I am almost tempted to say add it in first and let em discuss it after the fact and force the issue. I just hate to see all that hard work get quibbled over to the point no one wishes to insert in fear of stepping on toes. Some flexibility here might actual strengthen the article. If anyone passionately opposed they would undo... right? Ok ... well I'm done; some silence on the talk pages on this FA attempt might be what is needed now. Thanks again! --Random Replicator (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!--Random Replicator (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) David D. (Talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Version

[edit]

Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Guide Template

[edit]

Hi, David. Thank you for your help moving the Research Guide to a template page and for your advice about the magic word technique. I will experiment with it to see if the Reseach Guide template can be modified so it can apply to any article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion works very well so far! I moved the original Watson example from Template:Resarch guide to Template:Research guide Watson. That way, Template:Research guide will be generic, and can be modified to a similar Template:Research guide unique name if desired. I am still working on modifications. I will let you know if there are any problems other than the reversed name form.Shannon bohle (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The research guide template is up for deletion. I thought you might want to make a comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My favourite quote of the week

[edit]

Diff. Wonderful. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I keep my replies to a minimum. Anything too long and detailed is wasted. David D. (Talk) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on FAC

[edit]

Re your last comment at the FAC page, politely conducted FACs on non-controversial topics are usually marked by people denoting the shortcomings/mistakes/omissions etc of the candidate articles. It's quite normal behaviour <grins>. It's down to the nominator/s to fix the issues. If the critic chooses to help out, that's a bonus, but it's certainly not expected. In fact, the nominators are usually just glad for the feedback and a chance to improve the article. (Just take a look around WP:FAC)

On this particular FAC, which is very heated, I think it's even actually a good idea for critics to restrict themselves to merely pointing out what they consider to be problems, as it'll cause an awful lot less drama. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't do FAC enough to know the protocol and when i have I usually just go in and make the changes myself. You may well be right with respect to this particular FAC. I didn't mean to sound critical, I just thought it might be easier to head in and correct stuff rather than line item, especially since all the points made by Amalthus are valid. It's a shame that the editor feels scared off from making the bold edits. David D. (Talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'm an experienced admin, with no creationist baggage and I got frightened off the article talk page, let alone editing the article. I think it's hardly surprising! Btw I hope you realise I wasn't criticising you; I recognised you weren't familiar with FAC. Your contributions have been very calm and useful, thanks. Please do keep it up! --Dweller (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely did not take it as a criticism. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also

[edit]

Sorry about creating work for you. I made a mess. Your copy edit was great. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought it better get sorted out sooner than later. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for recognizing that I'm not trying to sabotage the article or Wikipedia. That's a first. It's probably best not to respond to this at all-but especially not at beat on the brat central dot com. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hasay

[edit]

I'm Jordan's #1 fan k?! Like wtf srsly :(. I'm going to go edit that article within the next 1-2 days :( It needs editting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0bby flay (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)

[edit]

The argument you were making was that, if the "introduction to..." article was deleted, there wouldn't be an introductory article. No-one is saying there shouldn't be an introductory article, merely that the introductory article should be the top-level article on the subject. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it should be, but look at the evolution article. It is not an introductory article, and likely never will be. I assume that is the whole reason why introductory articles have been started in the past and it seems like a very viable idea. Look at articles like DNA and RNA interference, again these are FA but have been criticised for being too complex. How do we solve this dilema? Writing for different levels is a good approach. Certainly stripping those university level articles to make them more appropriate for a general audience level is not the way to go in my opinion. To serve mutliple audiences is a better solution. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has 6 levels of articles. Why can we not have 2?--Filll (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. David D. (Talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defusing

[edit]

Thanks for your edit to defuse the situation developing on the homeopathy talk page --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again! Thanks. I should learn how to do this stuff --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article probation

[edit]

A community discussion has placed homeopathy and related articles on article probation. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.

I would note that it specificly points out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It does not specifically mention WP:AGF, but a bit of that would be useful in your behaviour on Talk:Serial dilution. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very bad timing to be messing around like this and you know it. David D. (Talk) 07:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see you edited that page, and so should be completely aware of this. Adam Cuerden talk 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right and you're the one pushing the line here. David D. (Talk) 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'm not really involved with the homeopathy business, but I couldn't help finding you a little quick to jump on Adam at Talk:Serial dilution. Perhaps, instead of bringing up past faults or slights, it would be easier and more harmonious to work towards the future and consensus? That sounds wishy-washier than I mean it to, but I hope you understand. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but WP:POINT type editing is not going to be helping an already strained relationship between editors on either side of the homeopathy discussion. Adam knows full well what I mean. David D. (Talk) 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean West (Black The Ripper)

[edit]

Maybe, but Ghetto (rapper) has an article and he is no bigger in the grime scene than Black The Ripper, if anything, he is not as well known. Gonzalez8 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that one might be worth deleting too. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one wasting my time...You are the one trying to stop me, or at least prevent me from wasting my time. Does this by defenition not make you a bigger time waster? I would ask kindly that you leave me and my endevours alone, I have done nothing to you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.189.153 (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or two key strokes to delete. You do the math. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gene template

[edit]

There's a bunch of extra space showing up on some pages. I realized its the bot's setting template adding it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your motives

[edit]

You seem to support some level of censorship, and though you personally claim not to. I would suggest that many of your edits are not edits but disguised censors. Leave be what needs to be left, dont touch what needs not to be touched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're Bobbybirch (talk · contribs) and you're talking about this edit. Your edits are not encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with censorship. David D. (Talk) 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack piece

[edit]

The material added to Prem Rawat is an attack piece against me and Wikipedia. Coming from a tabloidesque online publication with an history of being a mouthpiece against Wikipedia, its editors, and its founder, I wonder why is still in the article and why has not been removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the attack piece, it should be removed. I actually thought it had gone already. While you're here, don't you think there should be at least an acknowledgment of criticism in the article. It does does not seem so insignificant to be deleted as undue weight as momento has done on several occassions. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It seems to me that due to that article being published, and the numerous reverts, it may be wise to consider requesting protection for a few days at WP:RFPP As for your question, criticism is already present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{criticism section}}. Read the article, and you may find it there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would explain it. I have been looking through the history and it was hard to track the changes. I noticed there was a mediation effort to rewrite around June 2007. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossie you say that "criticism is "already" present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{criticism section}}" but i cannot find any. Are you sure it has not been removed recently? David D. (Talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington/Delaney

[edit]

I'm inclined to agree to a limited extent; keep in mind I actually AfDed Sarfati earlier (I'm still not really convinced he's notable when we get down to it. He isn't Kent Hovind or William Dembski for example). I do however think that in order to not let our own pet ideas of what should or shouldn't be included control we do need to use WP:V in general as a guideline for notability (and in fact we do per WP:N). Two comments; 1) this does bring up the standard issue that notability_wikipedia is not notability_colloquial (there was a thread back on Wikien a while back about this where people suggested other names other than "notability"). 2) I'd be inclined (and I suspect you would agree) that the sourcing difference between Sarfati and Worthington/Delaney might say more about the media, and presumably isn't saying anything that positive about the media(for that matter why do winners of say the Intel competition get less media coverage than smucks like Delaney?). However, that is essentially a POV, and we cannot let our personal POVs get in the way of what is included and what isn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is notability really quantifiable? It's always going to be subjective. If all we need are secondary sources then how come the community is so much more critical for articles of people who are not news worthy (from a curiosity perspective) and yet have sources. How many times do we see AfD,s succeed despite secondary sources? Non famous professor come to mind or buisnessmen. One recent cse I remember was someoe that had four math awards. I don't recall who, I 'll check. David D. (Talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it isn't we end up with a complete shit-show of everyone just not wanting articles about topics they dislike (I for example would be calling for deletion of pretty much all reality tv and all soap opera related articles). Indeed, one reason we've settled on the primary notability criterion is precisely to deal with that issue. Now, the community as a whole has reached some consensus that there are specific exceptions to this rule (such as WP:NOTNEWS and BLP penumbra and BLP1E) but on the whole this works a lot better. than having tens or hundres of different criteria depending on the article type. Finally, if a prof had four major math awards, I'd be strongly inclined to DRV that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we have a moving target? Should these two (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stefanie_Rengel and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Murphy (baseball_fan)) not be reinstated based on the current criteria? I just checked back and found that the mathematician survived (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Rubin), but how many others like that did not? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those look to me like they might have been decided correctly per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have not followed this guys story but how does Delaney not qualify as a one event news item? Isn't all the press just reiterations of the same story? David D. (Talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, there was subsequent coverage as he got hired to be a party promoter and his interviews and then he most recently got beaten up by a group of people angry at his earlier behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So those are independent of his party? Is being a party promoter notable, surely this is not more notable than any other scrap? He got into a fight, surely this is not more notable than any other scrap? It's all fluff, and I think you know this is not my opinion it's a documented fact. Can't we just merge him into Generation angry teen? Just because the media have a slow week is no reason for wikipedia to jump on every headline. David D. (Talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BobbyBirch and Friends

[edit]

I am most impressed with your horticultural connection between BobbyBirch and I, though I am not impressed with your answer. You claim to assume that BobbyBirch and I are the same person. I am sure you are very aware of the old adage, when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me, well in this case it makes an ass out of you. I am not BobbyBirch, though I am in contact with him. You say that I am not encyclopedic, I beg to differ, seeing how it is that you have no personal experience with the matters of which we speak, your opinion is not legitimate. When you take something away from something else do to a certain motive, it is called CENSORSHIP. You taking my thoughts and additions down is qualified as Vandalism and Censorship. I am unimpressed with you very clumsy attempts to make our page upright and none vandalized. I am sure somewhere in India they thank you. But not here, your just another loser sitting behind a computer screen...just let it go.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat & Criticism

[edit]

My interest in Prem Rawat is let's say low. At the time I only got involved as someone neutral, for two reasons:

  • I'm Dutch-speaking, and contributor Andries (quite "involved" at the time) needed help on sorting out some of the Dutch-language references he wanted to use per WP:V#Non-English sources. I acted as an uninvolved translator, also giving some advise on solidity of sources, and which quotes imho made more sense to be selected.
  • My involvement in Wikipedia:Criticism, and a sub-page of that essay and of the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline. That sub-page was I believe (but don't shoot me if I'm wrong) created by Jossi. It is now deleted. The name of that now deleted page: Wikipedia:List of POV forks. That page had as a goal to get rid of all "Criticism of..." pages apart from a very few exceptions. I never liked that page very much, but because of Jossi's strong feelings at the time I rather collaborated in trying to cut the too distressful edges from its content (bringing it more in line with Wikipedia:Criticism), than that I tried to get it deleted altogether (which however happened I don't know when).

For Prem Rawat & criticism, please proceed as you think useful. I'm still available for the above two aspects if you ask me directly. I don't have Prem Rawat-related articles on my watchlist, so I'm sorry I have to tell I had to read in "the press" so to say what had been happening to that article and the "criticism" counterpart since I edited them a few times over a year ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we do it the Wiki way and protect this article at Vassyana's last edit and discuss any changes before making them.Momento (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the wiki way would be to all collaborate to make that paragraph something acceptable to all. I tried to initiate that on the talk page but then it got reverted back the Jan 2007 version. Something had to be done to get a more suitable, yet stable version up. This is attracting a vast number of eyes but as yet there is no good reason to protect it. See my response on the articles talk page too. David D. (Talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see its back to the Jan 2007 version. I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. I'd advise you to collaborate with the neutral editors, it will be your only hope of salvaging a worthwhile article. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a few reverts before you go.Momento (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An invite to edit war? I think not. My suggestion from this point one would be to incrementally add back the GA suggestions. It is unlikely that neutral edits will be reverted. However, I suspect this is just the beginning of a too many cooks spoil the broth period in the life of this article. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no, I don't know. I stopped following the article over a year ago, that was more than a month before the GA review started. I still defend the version I reverted to, despite that I know a lot has already gone into improving (successfully, also thanks to you) the version you insisted on taking as a start.

Anyhow, in short:

  • Wikipedia:criticism, I don't like a separate section of "Criticism" near the bottom of an article. So please have a look at the WP:Criticism page, especially the Jimbo quote that is still on that page, the "troll magnet" quote. The version I reverted to had a "Reception" section, which allows to combine positive reception and criticism, still as recommended on the WP:Criticism page.
  • What I still didn't think OK about the version I reverted to (more or less where I left the page over a year ago) is the organisation of the criticism by author - I was still thinking that should really have been converted to by topic, and then quote a few solid sources where such approach was described, per topic. Note that apart from no longer having author name section titles, the version you defended as a new start still had that flaw of being by author, not by topic too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Talk:Prem Rawat/Temp (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses point 6 for what I mean), to get things sorted out in laboratory stage. Although I haven't thought this through yet, just offering a thought I was thinking when I read your message - needs some thinking whether that would work here: sometimes that technique rather complicates than simplifies things. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but the content that was there is still gone

[edit]

AC did a mass deletion of everything on the page and then put some stuff back. Could you put everything that he deleted back? I am happy to archive anything with his name on it. Abridged talk 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I restored the edits? I'm not an expert though, so I may have messed it up. David D. (Talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Abridged talk 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hopefully what i just did is acceptable. I moved your talk page to the archive, the page history is there too, and then added back the content to your talk page so it looks like the most recent reversion. David D. (Talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I really appreciate it. Abridged talk 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikithanks...

[edit]
... for words of kindness and reassurance.

Thank you, David. Breaks have advantages, and I now expanded an article on my childhood memories. I think I'll stay away from WT:RD for a while though, not all childhood memories are equally digestible. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you did a great job on Carigiet. Thanks for the thanks. David D. (Talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your inquiry

[edit]

Well, I think that borderline cases are precisely the ones we need to pay attention to and think hard about. Also, as per User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP I think that for BLP-penumbra deletions we really should pay attention to the community consensus. (That essay gives other reasons why I strongly prefer process in such situations). I also strongly think that we need to be objective about this sort of thing because we otherwise interject our own POV and cultural attitudes about what is notable. The fact that I'd rather not have the media pay any attention to Delaney is not relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we if we are too dependent on NEWS for objectivity, as in this case, we can end up with this type of situtation again and again. Besides from what I have seen there is quite a strong consensus that that this is not encyclopedic yet. I would understand if you were arguing that the process had not being allowed to run its course but on the pages themselves you are rebutting the arguments people make for it not being encyclopedic. For a borderline case such as this you can't ask people to review raw stats alone (i.e. numbner of google hits, quantity of coverage).
Worse, wikipedia is part of his NEWS coverage, that alone tell you we need to step back and re-evaluate in the future when we don't have to be discussing his potential for notability but rather his actual achievments. To date, the only way this should be documented in wikipedia is as part of an article of networking or social phenomena such as "flash events". David D. (Talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points but I don't find them convincing. First, I did argue that process has not been allowed to run its course. I'm also arguing incidentally that claims of not being notable are not strong enough to overide the process claims. That requires me to give some evidence of notability. If the discussion weren't focuing on that, I wouldn't be discussing that. As to the fact that Wikipedia is part of the news coverage; this is a result that has become more and more common due in part to Wikipedia's success. Frankly, we should get use to the fact that our discussions are sometimes reported (I may be naive but I wish people would keep that in mind more. It might keep the discussions more civil (this one has actually been pretty civil. I'm happy about that)). And we don't in general focus on "actual achievements"- that's highly subject and POV about what are actual achievements. I'd rather the media focus on what you and I consider to be actual achievements but given Wikipedia's job we can't do that for them. I agree that it might make some sense to document as part of some article on flash events or something similar. I'm not aware of any article on the topic that would work well (there was an article on Myspace and Paries but it got deleted for borderline OR issues and other problems). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was not clear enough, I recognise you were arguing that process had not been followed too, and I agree with that point. I was just surprised you were also spending so much time rebutting the arguments for keeping the article deleted for now. I too am not aware of flash event type article in wikipedia, if i were I'd suggest such a merger. Thanks for explaining your rationale. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War

[edit]

Right. I was trying to say "Shut up" and be civil, and a deliberate attempt at being funny seemed the way to go. Oh, well. But the French are indeed annoying, so it's no wonder you didn't know what to make of it all. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a little to close to the line. I'm French by the way. ;P Just kidding, but my sister in law is. David D. (Talk) 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Please don't threaten me with blocking for expressing my opinion, and for making my case against an editor who has been spewing anti-semitic bile all over Wikipedia and has been Jew baiting and attacking me incessantly. I do not appreciate such intimidation tactics. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening to block you, I said "it is likely you'll get blocked". Take it or leave it. I don't intend to block you, but as an uninvolved user you current state of posting makes you look like the bad guy. I thought that might be useful information for you. David D. (Talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

[edit]

I was wondering, would you be interested? - jc37 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I only went through RfA a couple of months ago. I'm honored but its probably premature. I'll tell you who should run though and that is TimVickers (talk · contribs). David D. (Talk) 04:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was/am serious. See User talk:Rick Block for some reasons why (You meet similar criteria)
I don't think I know him well, but if you feel TV should, poke him : ) - jc37 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Heya, David. Long time no see! – ClockworkSoul 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back. Your knowledge is very valuable. David D. (Talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David...

[edit]

I responded to you over at Boodles' place, thanks for presenting a valid alternative hypothesis. WNDL42 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. We need more data ;) David D. (Talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

[edit]

Hello. Regarding the vandalism warning [2] you left for KIMIMARU4242 (talk · contribs), please remember to subst the warning templates and also to sign your messages. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton

[edit]

Hi David. Here's (some of) the history. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, wouldn't that be more useful on AN/I? David D. (Talk) 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because of Boodlesthecat's tattered reputation means he wouldn't get very far. Skulking around behind people's backs is more his style now.
Adding [posts] back with further commentary is not productive.
Guy, pay attention: I was expanding on my comments, particularly with respect to the grotesque edit summary used when Boodlesthecat removed it. Perhaps you overlooked all of that. Perhaps you should before carrying water for Boodlesthecat latest obsessive nastiness. He's on a slippery slope, and he's greasing the skids himself. --Calton | Talk 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your job to kick him out the door. And the origianl content was basically baiting. What type of edit summary did you expect? David D. (Talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage v. notability

[edit]

Just to let you know, I do intend to answer this shortly; I'm a bit busy right now but will likely reply later tonight. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The longer response I promised you (I'm not sure it is as organized as it should be):

There are two fundamental issues here: The first is notability in the more general sense (does something deserve an article) and the second is within a larger context how much weight should we give a topic. Both of these are closely related so I am going to attempt to address them together.
The main issue as I see it is that we need an essentially NPOV method for deciding whether something is notable and if so how notable is it in larger context. This is for example, a most serious issue on topics related to fringe science and pseudoscience issues (I addressed this in passing in another context. The third paragraph there is most relevant. So the real issue for our purposes is; is there an NPOV method for determining notability and weight? When there are widely acknowledged experts in an area there is an easy way to get a decent rough estimate for weight; discuss matters based on what fraction of the experts have what opinions. For situations that are not directly academic, such as biographies, we don't have such an advantageous technique (and in fact we don't even always have this technique for fringe issues if no one has bothered to do the relevant metastudies). However, this doesn't even always work completely. No biologist today is a Young Earth Creationist(the fraction is at least vanishingly tiny). Yet Young Earth Creationism, Creation Science and Intelligent Design are all notable topics- why? because there are reliable sources about them- this means that a) people have decided they are topics which they want discussed and b) we have the ability to write about the topics pursuant to our policies and thus have the opportunity to give people NPOV articles on these topics.
In cases such as biographies where we don't even have the metastudy advantages the rough number of reliable sources functions as a decent approximation of what should be due weight and whether something or someone is notable; this has a number of advantages: first, since the fundamental restriction about what we can write about is what is in reliable sources it is natural to attach how much we write about something to how many reliable sources there are. This allows us to also fill out articles to the full extent that we are able; if we have sources we fill it out, if not we don't. Second, it reflects what the public wants to actually read about. If there are almost no sources on a topic, no one is going to want a Wikipedia article on that topic (and we should not forget that we are at the end of the day trying to write a useful resource for people to use). Third, this is advantageous to simply letting editors decide based on their personal POVs how much something matters. Indeed, this is how we as a general rule of thumb determine on contentious BLPs how to address things when we have proponents of a subject saying that almost any criticism is undue and opponents wanting to fill something with criticism. To do otherwise leads to the possibility of hit pieces or whitewashed puff pieces. For an interesting example of this practice at work see Kent Hovind where almost all the reliable sources(and there are many) are uninformiy negative. Fourth, this prevents personal POVs from being used to delete large amounts of content wholesale that people either don't care about or dislike. For example, when someone tries to have Evolution or Creation Science deleted because they don't like the subject (yes both have happened) we more or less point to them and say "hey, they are notable; notability here isn't subjective. We've got lots of reliable sources that discuss these concepts."
There are a variety of serious objections to such a stance; the four serious objections that I see: 1) it encourages recentism since modern issues are more likely to have many independent sources or have reliable sources at all. 2) it encourages tabloidism since many topics will be covered exclusively in tabloids or similar journals of ill repute 3) it isn't always clear how many actually independent reliable sources there are. For example, if one looks at the recent issues with Jimbo Wales/Rachel Marsden some sources appeared to simply be uncritically repeating claims by other sources. This also happened with the sources for the (now deleted) Corey Worthington article. 4) This ignores that some sources are more reliable than others.
I think that all three of these arguments have merit but none are that strong. To the first, the issue of recentism; I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with recentism in the limited extent that we do have limited sources about other topics, and we simply can't say that much about them. The second concern, that of tabloidism is interesting; in practice highly tabloidish topics do not in fact generate many reliable sources. While very popular celebrities such as Britney Spears might generate coverage in reliable sources, the more serious tabloidish material stays generally limited to unreliable tabloids and thus isn't included. Even when such material spreads it spreads to a handful of sources. Thus, on the rare occasion when such events get international coverage in major newspapers we can be more confident that that actually reflects some sort of inherent worth to the topic. The third criticism is the most subtle and difficult to deal with; we care generally care about how many independent reliable sources there are, and determining independence is not always easy. However, for most purposes the rough proportion of reliable sources overall should be roughly proportional to the total of genuinely reliable sources (I'd at least expect a positive correlation). The 4th issue is also a valid criticism but mainly a naive approach to weighing sources; obviously an article in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal should be given more weight than an article in the Random Podunk Newspaper. We of course need to be careful that such weighing does not introduce our own POVs but such weighing can be done. That's why we've also made restrictions such WP:NOTNEWS.
Overall, this isn't a perfect approach and if taken to extremes it can possibly lead to incorrect or possibly even harmful results. Like any methods it needs to be taken also with a dose of skepticism and critical thinking. But as a general procedure which minimizes the influence of our personal POVs it seems to do a decent job. I'd be happy to consider other systematic approaches if I were aware of them. If you have any further thoughts on this matter I'd be delighted to hear them. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldershot

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
Excellent work on Aldershot SuzanneKn (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very impressed with your patience with contributors after reading the talk page for Aldershot. Here's a barnstar. I hope you are keeping up the good work. I also wonder if you think something could be done with the sports section which has so many bold headings & spam links. I'm rather hesitant to edit given some of the contents of the talk page. SuzanneKn (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida v. J.L.

[edit]

Thank you for working on this recently improved article. Do you edit law articles ofteN? JeanLatore (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even sure how i came across it. David D. (Talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_D./Archive9&oldid=1085643931"