User talk:DavidWBrooks/2010 archive

I Got You (Split Enz song)
You have deleted my remark that the video clip for Split Enz's "I Got You" was influenced by the Magritte painting Not to be Reproduced. Both the painting and the video clip (at the 2:10 mark) feature a man in a burgundy jacket looking at a mirror/picture on the wall and seeing the back of his own head. Furthermore, Split Enz's image-maker Noel Crombie has openly acknowledged the influence of modern art in his work for Split Enz (costumes, video clips, album covers, etc). Do you regard all this as a coincidence? Season's Greetings. 118.93.163.111 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello DavidWBrooks! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Don Kirshner -
 * 2) Dave Davies (TV host) -
 * 3) Helyn Hitchcock -

Connecticut River deletion
IMHO, it's not obviously empty. It looks like it contains "Early Settlement" section at a quick glance. - Denimadept (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dang, now I have to put some text there, since I'm pretty sure I added the header. :-o - Denimadept (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Edith Piaf singing "Non, je ne regrette rien"
The photo of Edith Piaf, where she sings "Non, je ne regrette rien" is actually a screen shot of an old video clip that has been filmed!!

Photo of Edith Piaf singing "Non, je ne regrette rien"
I don't have further information about regarding the date, the place etc. If I do find it I'll surely include it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryKG (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please
Please put back my VP comment. The purpose is to get a discussion on how to assess reliability and how to improve reliability. Because of this, I no longer automatically consider CNN to always be a RS anymore. I hope you did not remove it because of censorship as you are a journalist. That would be like a lawyer removing a comment relating to lawyer because she didn't like it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Look what we missed
I recall a particularly persistent IP doing this some time ago (2008? 2009?), but this is the first from a registered user. I have not reverted yet because I am trying to WP:AGF, but I admit it is a struggle. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits in Tower of Hanoi
If my contribution to the Tower of Hanoi article wasn't clear enough for you, perhaps you could have contributed something of your own to improve it rather than simply reverting my half hour of work? Hopefully you won't now revert the follow-up hour that I spent creating the pretty diagram. This sort of elitist attitude can really put off well-meaning contributors. Ian Fieggen (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
I appreciate all of your hard working in keeping the list of unusual deaths a respectable page. I notice that there has been some recent controversy on the inclusion of the Dyatlov Pass Incident, and I've opened up another discussion on the topic on the talk page. In your recent reversion you mention that it has been discussed before, but not in the past few months as far as I can tell. You also mention that its exclusion is apparently reasonable because four editors have removed it from the list. I know at least four editors have wanted it on the list, so by that logic it is also obviously reasonable to include it. I invite you to contribute to the new discussion so we can all hopefully avoid an edit war! Verkhovensky (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Infinite Energy (magazine)
I have nominated Infinite Energy (magazine), 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/Infinite Energy (magazine)&. 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

USAAF airfield categories
I'm open to suggestions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vermont Yankee Tritium leak
The purpose of my edit was to point out that the cesium-137 spill is not a health issue, but an indicator of an historical event. This is not an argument, but simply a fact. It can be derived logically, and easily, from the cited material. Taken in the context in which it appears, it puts the presence of cesium, which is locally much talked about, into perspective. For those reasons, it belongs in the article.

If you have something of value to say about this, please let me know. If not, I will revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You refer to an opinion - what is the opinion? That cesium-137 is an indicator of a fuel spill? Or that a small amount of it in 150 cubic feet of soil is not a health risk? Both are in the source cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Out-of-place artifact
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Out-of-place artifact. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Out-of-place artifact. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

gandydancer
Hi there! I did talk to that editor asking where s/he got his/her info and s/he did not convince me one bit! I was going to remove it as well. BTW, the calls were to straighten the rails, not drive the spikes, though perhaps you knew that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow
I'm a reporter too. How do you like my reforms to OOPArt? --Againme (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Haha. It was just silly not to have more than two or three examples in the article and ignore all the classical ones! So help me when someone starts trying to delete those... --Againme (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Againme (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! You are making me blush... :) --Againme (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You seemed to have annoyed somebody. Check the deleted edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Better.
Thanks. --Againme (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Long and short scales
As a regular contributor, just a quick heads-up to say that there is some pick up of editing on the above article for the WP:GA review. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WMAQ Dispute
Anna Davlantes leaves WMAQ-Ch. 5 July 30, 2009 11:00 AM | 18 Comments Newscaster Anna Davlantes has left NBC-owned WMAQ-Ch. 5.

Her immediate exit was announced to staff in a terse memo to staff Thursday morning from Frank Whittaker, Channel 5's station manager and vice president for news.

"We appreciate Anna's contributions over the last nine years, and wish her the best in the future," Whittaker wrote.

Davlantes is the second anchor to leave the station in recent weeks.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/anna-davlantes-nbc-wmaq-5-chicago-tower-ticker.html

Ed Curran’s Experience

WMAQ-TV (Broadcast Media industry)

1999 — 2002 (3 years )

Meteorologist for the NBC owned and operated station in Chicago

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-curran/4/506/a59

These are just some of the many names that were deleted. Do you still think I am making names up???? What more proof do you need.TVFAN24 (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"that's what the organizers said"
Could you explain this edit to me? It's not very helpful to the reader is it? Isn't it pretty obvious that the reason for cancelling an event is brought to you by the organizers themselves? Aren't you implying that, by Wikipedia standards, notable sources say that there are other reasons? Joepnl (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm being overly suspicious - I'm a newspaper reporter, and hear PR bullshit all day long. What could have happened is that not enough people signed up because of the recession and/or their bad organization and/or whatever, and they were going to lose a ton of money so they bailed on the project - but they didn't want to say that because it makes them look bad, so they blame "insurance costs." (Every school district budget ever presented uses this as an excuse for higher costs, for example.)


 * As I say, I hear this kind of crap all the time from businesses/government/organizations blaming some outside force for various decisions, so my default reaction is to say "yeah, right; prove it". The journalistic move is to make it clear to the reader that there is no objective back-up for the statement - to let readers know where the information is coming from, so they can believe it or disbelieve it as they wish. The word "allegedly" performs this role succinctly but isn't really right for an encyclopedia, I don't think.


 * The seasteading article has long teetered on the bring of being overly gung-ho, which contributed to my decision to make the edit. If it strikes you as excessive, edit or revert or mention it on the Talk page. As I say, maybe I'm being overly suspicious. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After I posted that comment, I noticed that the article has already been edited. I've tweaked it a bit, trying to address both our concerns. What do you think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi David, this version is OK with me, thanks. $500 per attendee for insurance costs alone sounds like a pretty good reason to me. Joepnl (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

exotica
What section did I remove? I re-arranged the order so that "Revival" was the last section since it doesn't define "exotica", and obviously sequentially follows the rest of the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.201.34 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CEDAM International
A tag has been placed on CEDAM International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB + FIRST Robotics
Hi

Sorry - I was using AWB and intended to unlink the second iteration of Israel but was interrupted and probably unlinked Canada by mistake

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk Edit
Thank you for editting the rude beginning to this article. I went to click the edit button, but after refreshing the page noticed you beat me to it. =) Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.147.171 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wallace and Gromit
Did you think this category addition was random or did you just disagree with it?--RadioFan (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cervantes, Western Australia
Hi. I suggest reading Hatnote. It explains the proper use of hatnotes. Just because there are "zillions" of examples of where they are misused does not mean they should not be fixed where they are found. Relevant in the edit of mine that you reverted is Hatnote. I have again removed the hat note. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the reply. The point I would make is that there is (almost) zero chance of ending up at a disambiguated term like "Cervantes, Western Australia" if you were looking for any other use of the term. It is the pages that plain terms like "Cervantes" redirect to that need hat notes, not disambiguated terms. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Uluru
How would you even know that local Indigenous people climb their sacred rock? They don't. Who are you? You are not Indigenous. This is not your knowledge. This is not your history. This is not your land. Bugger off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.6.27 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Outjo
Mind explaining this removal of new, sourced content without an explanation?--TM 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)