User talk:Adavidb/Archive 7

Worldenc's charts
I would just like to inform you that I've started a thread here about Worldenc's charts. If you could take a look, that'd be great. Killiondude (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 04:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
--NBahn (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

Mass deletions
ADavidB, endless mass-deletions of everything but a fan's point-of-view not only violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but are rude behavior. Please stop. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have room for more than just a mass-deleting fan's point-of-view. The result of such deletions is to block all other points of view, with the pretense that fans "own" a Wikipedia article, which isn't true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't include any evidence in your accusation, here's a link to today's edit for all to see. The only removal was of a closing sentence based on an article by an op-ed columnist; my edit summary explains why. With your concern about violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, check out WP:RS. —ADavidB 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of SALT (quartet)
I have nominated SALT (quartet), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/SALT (quartet). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added my comments to the referenced discussion page. —ADavidB 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize this discussion has drug out longer than either of us would probably prefer. I wonder, is SALT an acronym for something? If so, I think the full name should be the article title. Just a small point. If it is, I'd have no problem if you went ahead and moved it, or waited, in whatever case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd thought the name might be an acronym, perhaps with Swedish words, though have only found references to the mineral/seasoning aspects of "salt" in association with the quartet, even in Swedish language versions of the material. —ADavidB 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown
Good for you on that citation. It wasn't working. Somebody had added a link to it that included the Guardian in the U.K., but when I clicked on that link, it went to a 'page missing' message. So thanks for making that cite better. Malke 2010  06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. —ADavidB 06:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Steele
A nice clean-up. What I tend to think of as "neutral," in the first instance, is usually narrative and not always as neutral as a closer recitation of attributable data. Thanks. Brachiator (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in December I added to Michael Steele's page that he played the banjo in HS. It seems that within hours you removed that entry. Is that somehow controversial? Do I have to dig out an old yearbook and scan it to satisfy you? I'm no Wiki expert and I don't check on my contributions very often. That's why it's been months since I noticed the change. You could have contacted me for verification. I don't understand what gives you the authority to challenge such a minor statement.Circuitsmith (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I undid your edit from December 3, 2009, I acknowledged in the edit summary that while I believe you made the addition in good faith, no verifiable source was provided. Anyone can make the same claim of having been a classmate and add similar minor statements. Especially with articles on living persons, all editors share the authority and responsibility to make sure the content complies with Wikipedia's policies. Please read them. No personal offense was intended. —ADavidB 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the attention-elg tag on MD 216
See Maryland Route 216, among several others. The junction list, before I edited it, did not conform to the standards for exit lists; shields were all over the place, for one thing. For that reason, I don't see why the tag I placed on the talk page was removed, especially for the reason that was given in the edit description&mdash;"this is not a controlled-access highway having exit numbers". The tag is not there to upgrade the highway into a freeway; it's there to clean up the junction list and make it conform to the standards given for them. &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 12:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)