User talk:DavidWBrooks/2007 archive

The Mythopoeic man from Nantucket
You are absolutely right that "mythopoeic" in this context is "pompous and silly". But in the larger context, like many otherwise good articles that take themselves too seriously, it's silly to have an encyclopedia article about this limerick in the first place.

The fact that this word has been part of the article for over a year indicates a large degree of approval. I've yielded to you on other word choice issues, I'd appreciate if you would yield to me on this one. Thanks Ghosts&amp;empties 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your humoring me.Ghosts&amp;empties 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military brat
Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support keeping the category. Here is the link to the discussion Balloonman 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Podcasting
I've noticed you've been active in dealing with issues of the Podcast page, and thought I'd let you know about the Wikiproject I've proposed. I've proposed a wikiproject to deal with all things podcasting and wondered if you'd be interested in seeing it happen. If you are, just over to the proposal page and find podcasting, then just add your name under 'interested users'. Cheers!  Gan fon  22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit to Newspaper
Hi, DavidWBrooks.

I noticed your revert to one of my edits in the Newspaper article. I agree with you in that the link I removed is as good as any other. I do believe, however, that most links in that section don't meet WP:EL guidelines, since they each don't provide a unique resource that complements what the article has to offer. In my opinion we should choose the best of that directories and include in the "external links" section. One good directory is enough for readers seeking information on "Newspaper". Please, remember the policy "links should be kept to a minimum".

By the way, now I think I should have put more of my effort when editing and done the clean-up myself. My fault...

—Red Thrush 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to the Curse Reversed
Because because the Red Sox won the World Series that doesnt mean the Yankees are cursed! The curse is just over!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Make Way for Ducklings
Today's featured article, Make Way for Ducklings, is an article that you started back in February 2005. Thank you for your contributions! -- Jreferee 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

illions
David W(?) Brooks - How come yanks cannot get it right on the proper use of terms "billion", "trillion", "quadrillion" etc? Maybe yanks, like the media in general, are a bit lacking up top... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brf00 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Paul is dead
I should have put the other edits back, I reckon. Sorry about that. Wahkeenah 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At least all it's doing is posting that nonsense. What I would be dreading is some yahoo starting a revert war over the issue, claiming POV violation or some such. Wahkeenah 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Why did you delete my comments about slant rhyme from the English words with uncommon properties entry?
 * Please sign and date your comments, so they're not just random sentences floating around. But hoping you'll check back here, I'll respond: because pointing out that words can be "rhymed" by words that don't quite rhyme doesn't fit in an article about specific words with specific properties. Any word can be slant-rhymed; that's something to be noted in rhyme or some such article. - DavidWBrooks 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The "The" again
Talk:Barack_Obama Your professional insights welcome. --HailFire 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zohnerism
The "discuss" tag for merging Zohnerism goes to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax talk page, where nobody necessarily knows that Zohnerism (the article) even exists. Shouldn't it go to the talk page for Zohnerism? - DavidWBrooks 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and the Zohnerism talk page stays with Zohnerism. Totnesmartin 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pareidolia
Responded to your comment on Talk:Pareidolia. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Aspect of the Hippie Trail

 * The key fact of the Hippie trail was that most of the people who undertook it were in a spiritual search. The stock of ideas, values and other influences these people borrowed from the destinations they visited left an imprint in the following generations.

I notice you removed the above section. Actually spiritual searching was a key component of hippie travel, both with respect to this specific route and travel to other destinations--"finding one's teacher" was the goal.

I specifically traveled to Peru, for example, on a spiritual quest. And there were thousands of others doing the same thing--to South America, to Japan, to India, to Nepal.

I believe some mention of this aspect of hippie travel needs to be included--perhaps a better edit. Apostle12 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was certainly part of it, and needs to be mentioned. But not the most important part. - DavidWBrooks 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

contribution to uluru article
in appreciation of your contribution (you may have forgotten, it was a while ago), Uluru is the official,accepted,endorsed and dare i say popular name now IMHO and you helped clarify this

Wiki works Newbyguesses 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LoonyGeoffrey Was right!
Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy EXISTS! What are you talking about! IT IS TOO NOTABLE! ITS ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR TRILOGIES OF ALL TIME! So honestly, how does it not exist yet? Its completed. They have finished the trilogy. So you were wrong, and LoonyGeoffrey was right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.148.150 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Since the third movie hasn't been released it doesn't exist yet. - DavidWBrooks 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, but Pirates of the Caribbean is in fact a trilogy. You said it didn't exist yet, but it does. And yes, it is notable, and people have seen it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LooneyGeoffrey (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Trilogy means three of a kind - the third movie hasn't been released yet. So far it's a ... well, duopology, I guess, with the potential of being a trilogy. A few people may have seen the third one, but not enough to make it notable. - DavidWBrooks 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Uncommon English Words
Hi there,

You reverted my edit to the article, when I added the info about "hirple" rhyming with purple. Could I ask why you did this, since I cited my source (QI)? I was actually about to cite our Scots dictionary as well, but I had something else to do first.

Sorry if I made some kind of heinous error, I'm still a bit new around wikipedia with regards to the more technical things, despite the fact I've been here over a year or something! thefunkygibsonT¤C 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It struck me as unnecessary; we weren't writing about hirple, but rhyming - alternative spelling was an extra factoid. It might be true and well-sourced, but still not necessary. That article already groans until tons of tidbits. - DavidWBrooks 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah right, ok :D I thought since there was the information about chilver rhyming with silver, it might be appropriate to add that there is a rhyme for purple too.  Personally I'd have thought that the business about how to make orange rhyme with anything is more unneccessary than proving that a seemingly unrhymable word does actually have a little-known rhyme, but as you say there's lots of trivia and stuff in that article already. thefunkygibsonT¤C 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tucks vs. Tux
Hi David, I wonder if either nickname for the ravine shows up in print anywhere. In the AMC White Mountain Guide, for instance, not only do they never use any nickname, they're careful to only refer to it as "Tuckerman Ravine", not "Tuckerman's", which is the common New England vernacular practice of adding the possessive. If there's no cite anywhere for either nickname, I guess I would still go with "Tuck's", just because it's an obvious shortening of the full name. Why would people call it "Tux"? ... Though come to think of it, the Concord Monitor had a photo last year of a (male) skier heading down the ravine in a prom dress. Do they have formal days up there now?  --Ken Gallager 17:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds similar to the way whitewater canoers in Pennsylvania like to call the Youghiogheny River "the Yock". It still felt wrong to me to have the nickname in the very first sentence, so I moved it to the paragraph about spring skiing.  Thanks for setting me straight. --Ken Gallager 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland
Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodwin's Law
Thanks for helping with my submission to Goodwin's Law. I now realize the absurdity of pointing out how "it's important to note." I guess I just got used to saying that in essays in university to sound more important! I just wanted to say, however, that I think the thought-experiment is pedagogically important for the encyclopedia, as the subject of the article is not statistics, thus it makes it possible for someone who is reading this article, and is not versed in that subject area, to understand it simply. I think it fits in an encyclopedic format, but maybe it wouldn't be good for something like a newspaper, where everything extraneous should be cut out. Furthermore, I am afraid someone will cut the whole section out of the article if it doesn't have the weight of the thought experiment (i.e. someone who doesn't understand it thinks it's POV or original research and offhand cuts the whole thing), but that may or may not happen. Finally I think the standard form is also important for establishing the point (though this may only be because my educational background includes formal logic/philosophy) of it being a tautology, and it doesn't make the last sentence seem so much like vandalism, because, like I said, it is quite absurd. If it has the standard form to balance with it, however, then it will flow better. I also like the standard form from a pedagogical standpoint, making the reader better understand how Goodwin's Law itself relates to the tautology. I'd like to hear what you think. Chris b shanks 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * answered on Talk page
 * Thanks for your consideration :) Someone erased the whole thing anyways, so I tried to defend it.  If you think it's worthy, could you please add your 2 cents?  I also commented under the section "What does 'probability approaches one' mean?" trying to elucidate what the concept of OR really means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris b shanks (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi David
I wanted to contact you off-wiki, but you're not set up to receive e-mail. If you don't mind contacting me, my email is cbass (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks. Cary Bass demandez 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone's interested in contacting you for an interview. If you are interested, and have any other contact information, or simply would rather not, please let me know.  Cary Bass demandez 12:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest
Hi DavidWBrooks First I notice a contrast between your very good writing and the usual at Wikipedia (including mine) But I was wondering where you are getting the info about HBEF? The source I've added (Jim Hornbeck) gives a quite different history. KAM 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Numbers
Hi. I've taken the Doctor Who reference back out of the Happy number article. Wikipedia's trivia policy explicitly mentions "popular culture" sections as a prime example of what not to do in an article. It's very cool that happy numbers got mentioned on Doctor Who, I agree, but it's a fact about a Doctor Who episode, really - it doesn't help anyone who came to Wikipedia to find out about happy numbers. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but you're overlooking another sector of readership: those who didn't come to wikipedia to find out about happy numbers, who probably don't know they exist, but who encounter them via a Dr. Who search - and therefore learn about them. Which is exactly why the reference should be in the article. If there were lots of such references then you wouldn't want them - e.g., you wouldn't include every TV-show reference to "pi" - but this is so unusual and unexpected that it's just the kind of thing wikipedia does well. Over-literal trivia-stomping in this case cuts off a route of spreading a little recreational mathematics to a world that needs all the math help it can get. - DavidWBrooks 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've moved the conversation here to keep it together.  You're right about people coming to the article because of the Doctor Who episode - that's why I read it.  People like me, though, who came to it that way, already know it was in the doctor who episode.  I'm not sure what you mean about people who didn't come to wikipedia to find out about happy numbers - if you didn't want to find out about them, why would you be reading the article?  I think I must have misunderstood you - what have I missed?  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - I don't think I've pointed you to the most helpful policy page Handling Trivia is more helpful. The paragraph about pink-eye and Mir sums up what I'm on about.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My info comes from interviews that I've done and from IMDB
Dear Mr.Brooks, In response to your query as towhere I got my info about Paul Tripp,Gene London,Bob Keeshan,"The Space Explorer'sClub" and Sonny Fox?

I'm a writer and I've done research on these people via interviews,reading books like "Growing Up Happy","The Golden Age Of Live Television:Notes From The Survivors",etc.

I've also some info on the airdates of Paul Tripp's tv shows from the IMDB website(Actually..I wrote that article for that website and I got the airdates for that article from checking out the back issues of The NYC/NJ/CT.editions of TV Guide) And I've seen "Chuck McCann's Funstuff" at a private screening years ago. Mr.Fox' name in is the show's credits.

I've also done some checking on the airdates of these tv shows from back issues of The L.A. Times.The N.Y.Daily News,TV Guides etc.

I hope that my info is acceptable for your site.

Also,if it is permissible? I'd like to write articles on Claude Kirchner, Joe Bolton,Ray Forrest,Jack McCarthy(The former NYC based tv announcer,co-founder of WPIX TV Ch.11 and former kids tv host),Joe Bova,and Fred Sayles(former New Jersey radio/tv announcer,singer and kids tv host)?

KidsTV 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

why do you delete the rotten apple links?
I makes me wonder? That serie tells the whole story much better than the websites you link to? I simply do not understand why you do it? Please get back to me....

thanks

M

Gravity Research Foundation Goals of Roger Babson
Please feel free to add the quotes in the Foundation article. I don't believe the death of his sister and grandson were the principle causes for creating and managing the Foundation. He had a sincerely intense fascination with gravitation. Roger and his wife "scoured" the world for writings and substances to shield gravity. Chapter 10 of Kaiser's dissertation provides a wealth of information about the Foundation during Babson's day. The articles and papers I have collected reveal the fascinating role the Foundation played during the anti-gravity research programs of the fifties. You may find the gravity control propulsion projects section of the Anti-gravity article to be interesting. Tcisco 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wibberley work and Wiki resources
Thanks for beginning the stub on Leonard Wibberley. I came upon it and Wiki work by chance, when looking for an out-of-print book of his, found it incomplete and vandalised in his name, and so began working on it. I think it's now in appropriate shape for an encyl. article. By contacting his family I've been able to fill out the bibliography in fair scholarly form, and only a little remains to be done in that regard. I'd also like to cross index his titles in attractive ways--"scifi", "sea", "religious" etc.--preferably with colors or little logos, a la Tufte. (MrZaius put in the tabular form for me as an example, and that would work, tho' not so attractive.)

This effort also involved linking Wibberley to his first wife, Olga Maynard, and here Wiki has a scoop, since these two writers avoid ref. to ea. other in all printed matter. Wibberley's no. of pubs and their span also provided a case study of changes in presses from postwar pd to present corporate ownerships.

Finally, as a university professor, I'm familiar with objections to students' use of Wiki. These seem to me dubious for several reasons. Two are: the high quality of some of the articles and, as students must learn to distinguish good from indifferent to poor sources, Wiki would be a good training tool for that. There are other good reasons, as well, including the example of trust and openness of the project. Thanks for your help in all. Alethe 12:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wibberley article & pillar of originality
I read you: thanks for the tip! The revised & almost complete biblio. (better now than anything 'out there' & I hope improving the Wiki gen'l standard) is ascertainable from the USC special collections site. What I did was to find it by contacting the family (& Cormac Wibberley is a link), & provided a URL for the world to see. The other info. is also findable on web, tho' it takes sifting. The only 'scoop' is the marriage. It's maybe "new data". But, recalling '#12, "ignore rules", we thereby get a link to the another site, on dance, and filling out of existing info. that LW was in Trinidad during the war. I do, however, plan to use the' verifiable public sources rule when fixing the article on Eugene Loring and get rid of the french fries stuff--as with the stuff on Richard Wollheim, which gives Wiki a bad name. (In all this one needs only to be aware of recursive spirals--windows, which produce windows, which....--that, if it doesn't lead to madness does to missed meals, warm beer and cold tea. However, if Leibniz is right, in time all Wiki articles will have internal links to all other Wiki articles, and it'll all be one big article, reflecting part of the mind of the Great Wiki.  Long before then there'll be Wiki hoods and secret electronic handshakes.) Alethe 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Paid by the revert
Ever wish we got paid by revert on Seven Wonders of the World and New Seven Wonders of the World ... ? According to the interiot edit counter, they are my #1 and #8 most edited articles. What a pitty that 95%+ of those edits are reverting someone else's "test." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unable to keep up with the firestorm of "test" edits, I eventually gave up and requested that both articles be protected with a pp-semi-vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu Views
Hope everything is enjoyable in your life. Congratulations for your actions you are a Wikipedian. My primary purpose is to explain you why I have reverted your modifications, and also to start a dialog or colloquium with the aim to improve content without imposing views. I will give you reasons for it(rational behind), however you need to make an effort to remain neutral, it is hard, read Carl Rogers or Albert Ellis but I sense your intelligence and know that we and Wikipedia, more importantly its readers, will benefit for our collaborative interactions in the near future. Count me as one of your co-workers. Now see the MP talk page. John Manuel-17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World
Would you mind casting your professional eye at my additions to New Seven Wonders of the World? Things got kinda busy at work all of a sudden and I fear I was too rushed to be writing at my eloquent best. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AP Stylebook
You got me! Guess I was being a bit facetious, using the sentence describing the rather peculiar grammatical style as an example of it. Actually, I'm a big fan of the serial comma. I think this was the first time I've let one go, ever. --gwc 05:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

nn
I am not using a bot, and I am reading the articles. Thanks for the advice about the nn templates, feel free to remove any you don't agree with. Zargulon 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is amazing what some people are willing to do when waiting for a computer programme to run..! Zargulon 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos page
Back in February 2007, you asked in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos Discussion Page why the Mathematical Tripos in Cambridge is referred to as "the taught mathematics course" at Cambridge. I'll try to give you an answer.

Basically, in the Oxbridge university model, one often distinguishes between "taught courses", such as those leading in Cambridge to the BA, MEng, and MSci degrees, and "research courses", such as those leading to a PhD degree or, more rarely, to the MLitt, MSc, or, in the case of Natural Sciences, a few MPhil degrees. The difference between the two classes of the degrees is that the awarding of the former requires attending a certain number of university lectures and passing a series of associated final written exams, whereas the latter traditionally requires only the submission of a research thesis that is examined orally. For the PhD degree in particular, the submitted thesis, in addition to reviewing the existing literature, must also document, in an scholarly manner, sound original research that represents a substantial novel contribution to existing knowledge in the field to which the thesis topic is related. Results arising from a PhD thesis are also expected to be passible of publication in peer-reviewed journals and/or as books/book chapters. (Note: Cambridge PhD students in a few departments, e.g. engineering, are also required nowadays to take classes and written exams in their first year, but that normally doesn't count for credit towards their final degree, except to help ensuring their continuation in the program when they're up for a formal performance review).

Generally speaking, "taught degrees" in Cambridge or Oxford are initial (bachelor's or undergraduate master's) degrees, whereas "research degrees" are advanced (graduate master's or doctoral) degrees. Several graduate master's degrees however, e.g. most Cambridge MPhil degrees in humanities and social sciences, are actually, in the British terminology, "part-taught, part-research degrees", requiring that the student attend lectures, take final written exams and submit a research dissertation, which may be orally examined or not depending on the course. A master's dissertation is expected to be shorter and of a lower standing than a PhD thesis.

The Mathematical Tripos in particular is typically a "taught course" in the sense described in the first paragraph and in article, leading to the undergraduate BA degree for students who pass the examinations for Parts I and II respectively, and to the graduate Certificate of Advanced Studies in Mathematics for students who take and pass Part III examinations.

Note 1: If we were to apply the Oxbridge terminology to US degrees, an American undergraduate B.S or B.A, and the professional M.B.A, J.D or M.D would be typically "taught degrees". An American M.S or M.A can be in turn either wholly "taught degrees" or "part-taught, part-research" degrees depending on the program. Finally, the American Ph.D could be classified as a "research degree" even though, unlike in the UK, all US PhD students are required to take regular graduate classes in their first years in the program and must also pass a series of (written or oral) preliminary/qualifying exams, in addition to submitting a successful research thesis.

Note 2: The US is somewhat unique among English-speaking countries in using the term "dissertation" to PhD work and "thesis" to refer to master's work. As implied before, British usage is exactly the opposite, i.e. "dissertation" is normally a master's work and "thesis", a PhD work. 161.24.19.82 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Baird
A template has been added to the article Dan Baird, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Do you know when the show went color? Dogru144 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the answer and made the change. Dogru144 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Template question
At least, I think it's a question about templates. Hi, David! I'm asking you this question because you're listed as an administrator: I'm hoping you'll either know the answer, or know where to find someone who can help. I've been busy with a series of articles on vipers, many of which use a template (?) that makes it easy to create external links to entries in a particular online database. An example would be the first link in this external links section, the markup language for which looks like this: These links used to be for records at the Reptile database at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). At one point late last year, the EMBL stopped hosting this database, upon which the man responsible for it, Dr. Peter Uetz, went looking for a new home for it. In the mean time, the code behind this template at Wikipedia was changed to work with the Species2000 database, even though that's only a subset of the original EMBL Reptile Database. Finally, about two months ago, Dr. Uetz's database went online again here, but it seems that the folks at Wikipedia who maintain the EMBL template have not yet discovered this. My question for you is therefore, how can I find out who maintains this template, or where can I find someone who can change it to query the Reptile database at its new location? Thanks! --Jwinius 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know much about templates - they came on board after I became an administrator, and I haven't caught up. - DavidWBrooks 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway. --Jwinius 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you're still interested, I've figured out how this works. What needed to be changed was Template:EMBL species (and Template:EMBL genus). More information can be found at Help:Template and assistance can be sought at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_templates. Cheers! --Jwinius 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney Opening Revert
Wouldn't it be an urban legend both ways though? I mean, some think the original is alive, others think he is dead. I'm not going to change it back, I like how you changed it.. And sorry I forgot to sign my comment. Bryse 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul is dead nominated at AfD.
Obviously we need your input here also if you can.

Where's George?
I nominated an article that you created, Where's George?, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvageable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its deletion page. Please see the Guide to deletion if you have any questions about Wikipedia's deletion process. -- GreenJoe 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wondering at the Wonders
So what do you think about the big revamp of Wonders of the World and Wonders of the World (disambiguation)? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do not care for the reorganization of Wonders of the World (disambiguation), as the current short-list format seems to be a lot more haphazard in its order versus the prior long-list dab page format. Also, I really do not like how all the redirects were changed to point to Wonders of the World: Seven ancient wonders was changed from redirecting to Seven Ancient Wonders (the novel with the same name, but different capitalization) to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Seven wonders or the world was changed from redirecting to Wonders of the World (disambiguation) to Wonders of the World, Wonder of the world was changed from redirecting to Wonders of the World (disambiguation) to Wonders of the World, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your input. I was not sure if I was being too nit-picky, and it sounds like I am.  Thank you for letting me defer to your good judgment.  :-)   Kralizec! (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire open primary?
I saw your recent edits to New Hampshire primary and thought that you could help. This recent news article writes "'Now, I am certainly not vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy, but on their website, a website used by many, they falsely claim that NH is an open primary. I did not even see this entry until I began writing this current article, and I did not in any way shape or form rely on Wikipedia in writing the previous article, I only bring it up because clearly, misinformation abounds about the rules for voting in many states.'" I don't know what article(s) he is talking about, but some of them might be found via this Google search and this Google search. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ratings?
When I look at my watchlist, each article seems to have a rating + or - of some sort. Did I miss something?

--Ur Wurst Enema 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, I think I got it, it's the heuristic ratings from the bots....


 * --Ur Wurst Enema 05:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks are great
Hi David. Sorry about reverting your edit, it's just as time passes I am finding more and more of the content of that article to be ridiculous (I think I will have to stop contributing to it as it is a bit of a blind spot for me). Your compromise of using quotation marks is a great idea. -- No Guru 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Please don't think I'm trying to harass you I just wanted to get to the bottom of what's happening here, did you delete the link to our message board "The Bonzo Dog band Message Board"? in the history it looks like you were the last person too before the spambot stepped in. I just wanted to say it is not spam it's a useful link regarding the band and the section is already linking to a similar site that just talks about one of the bands members, why can't there be a link to a site that discusses all it's members?

Thank you for your time

Nancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyrowina (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
serves us right for having "fans" in our title lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyrowina (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New England Telephone
I realize that New England Telephone is not a page about the company named Verizon Communications, but it is an article about the company that is currently named Verizon New England, Inc.. According to the FCC, the company New England Telephone still exists today, simply renamed - to take away the corporate infobox and the history of its name change, it is taking away a very important part of information about the company and its history. Just because New England Telephone was renamed to Verizon New England does not mean its corporate charter was superceded by Verizon Communications - it means that New England Telephone stil exists, just under a different name. KansasCity 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mailer
Saw you blocked User:Mailer diablo recently for "vandalism"? No edits today, no deleted edits for weeks, and you didn't mention anything about sockpuppets or such... hit the wrong button? That or I'm missing something serious. Since I can't figure out any other interpretation, just yet, I went ahead and unblocked, please advise if this was a bad idea. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi David, I would appreciate an explanation as well. - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I had blocked an IP that uploaded an obscene photo and gave it a misleading label (Iran-flag) and then redirected an article to the photo - so that it popped up without warning on my screen. How did I miss it so badly - sorry. (It was actually User:Mattjblythe who did it, who has since been blocked by others) - DavidWBrooks 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Please do be more careful in future. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Census-designated place proposal
Hi David, I just posted a long-winded proposal to the Wikiproject New Hampshire discussion page. Would you mind looking at it and commenting? Thanks. Ken Gallager (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Friend of a Friend
Your FOAF_(software) (Friend of a Friend) article is nonsense. You can define anything with XML. You might as well define SOAT ("Student of a Teacher"). It is arbitrary and obvious.

you created the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FOAF_%28software%29&limit=500&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.162.143 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create articles unless they belong in Wikipedia. And the fact that the FOAF_(software) content did not belong in the FOAF article does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia.

For more info please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.162.143 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiral Island Wiki
Hi David. I just came across the fact that you edited this page and deleted my addition of a book being written about the Island and Richie's journey, along with comment under the edit section that the book should not be mentioned until it is available. I specifically added that the book is due out in 2008 and added this info as it is creating a buzz amongst those of us who know Richie personally and have had spent time on the island as well as his "fan base" of followers of the story and those who are just learning about it. As a resident of the area as well as being in contact with many of the above interested parties, I feel that my addition adds much to the page for those seeking info. I see that you are a journalist and as such I would think that information relating to an upcoming book, and one that was clearly stated as such, would be a position that you would support. I am re-adding my addition to the page and would like you to further explain your stance on why this is an inappropriate addition. While we are all free to do as we wish on Wiki, I trust that you will leave my addition alone barring any truly valid reason why this information should not appear. Thanks in advance for your response. Jillian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiiqblond (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Putucusi Article Edit
Thanks for giving my nascent article a look. I wanted to include recommendations, but I understand why they might not belong there. Any other additions, specifically in the sacred mountain arena, would be appreciated.

Have you climbed Putucusi yourself? It looks like you have at least been to Aguas Calientes. User:Lmuellerleile 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Belize - Religion Section
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize#Religion

Thanks for your editing help, but methinks you could chill a bit. DeeKenn (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. DeeKenn (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an academic article featuring Mr. Green Jeans
Here's an academic article featuring Mr. Green Jeans: AnteaterZot (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the tag nor the policy. Articles require secondary and tertiary sources, that's the policy. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not applying tags mindlessly, I look for sources, and apply the tags if there are no sources. What would you do with this article: Chicken Boo? AnteaterZot (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been here longer than me, I guess. I have an agenda, which is to promote the consolidation of character pages into lists. Ditto with episodes. I have a similar agenda as far as elementary schools pages are concerned; getting them into their district pages. The tagging process is my attempt to educate people about the weakness of their favorite pages without going to AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnteaterZot (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I view the process as kind of like natural selection. If I get a lot of people angry over a topic, it must be important even if their arguements are incoherent or against policy. A policy could be wrong. On schools, there is broad agreement that elementary schools are non-notable unless proven otherwise. The AfD battles occur when a seemingly non-notable school is nominated, only to have sources crawl out of the woodwork. By tagging elementary schools with reliable sources tags, I hope to at least ascertain which schools people care about, and which ones they don't. My goal is to reduce AfD fights in the long run, by taking a little flak now. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)