User talk:DavidWBrooks/2021 archive

Riven
Hi David, I don't understand why you thought that reverting my Riven edit would remove a hatnote. The hatnote was already there, AWB simply reordered, a process you are very familiar with. I have reverted your reversion. If you wish to remove the hatnote would you please do it independently of my edit whose primary purpose was to introduce a 'sic' template. Best regards, Neils51 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my error - editing in a hurry! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Corbin Park (aka Blue Mountain Forest & Game Preserve)
Hi David, I would like to start an article on Corbin Park (also known as the "Blue Mountain Forest & Game Preserve") here in New Hampshire. If I get a stub started for it, can you help me fill out some of the details for it? Thanks. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Josephine Tey
I deleted the paragraph about the deficiencies in the Times death notice because it is contradicted by the new reference. The Times obituary contains all the pen names under which she wrote. The original entry came from a deprecated source.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Non, je ne regrette rien
Hello, I am sorry that 30 years personal experience appears to be insufficient. Please advise what you think might make clearer the regular use of this song in funerals in the UK.

Yours sincerely, Simon Allen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heysford (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In all wikipedia articles, personal recollections from a single editor is not considered a reliable source. Sorry, but that's part of what makes wikipedia work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I think it's enough to tag unsourced claims with the citation needed template, if it looks like a claim worthy of inclusion.
 * On the converse, having a bening though potentially false claim is not what would make wikipedia break. A better argument should be that "in the UK" and "regular use" by themselves do not suffice to reach notability, and that mention in published writing would prove notability.
 * Isn't that correct? Rhyminreason (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank You For Putting A Picture Of That Bulgarian Revolutionary On The Wikipedia Page About Moustaches
I'll start this off by saying that I barely sign into wikipedia while browsing it even though i browse it pretty much daily, in fact im surprised I remembered my login credentials. So anyway me and my friend were looking at the wikipedia page for moustaches and thought that dudes moustache was just so amazing. I was curious what crazy son of a bitch added that shit, so i went through the page history and found that you did it, so I signed into my account to say thank you.

Simpson item in man from nantucket article
How does this NOT meet "He began saying?" 199.96.225.188 (talk)

Italics are not quotes
Re: your removal of the italics from the Paul McCarney quote on the Paul is Dead article: the word was in italics (this), not quotes ("this"). When a speaker stresses a particular word in spoken dialogue, the way to convey that in writing is to write the word in italics. McCartney stressed a particular word when he said that line, hence why I put it in italics. WillieBlues (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes; my error- sorry WillieBlues = DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. Alas, somebody else has since removed the entire entry from the article! WillieBlues (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was JG66. He or she is a very prolific Beatles-article editor; a little too possessive of them for my taste but overall is very good. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Peripheral edits
Hi, David. I've recently discovered a pattern of mass, across-the-board edits in several articles that specifically focus on what are called: "peripheral references" found in WP sections Popular Culture. Weighing what is deemed to be "peripheral references" vs worthy references by comparison is somewhat confusing to me since looking over WP:POPCULTURE those that you have removed do warrant 3 "yes" merits. For instance, an LP album that is merely called "Caligula" was kept, yet scenes that cite the subject in specific context on a television show are removed. Similarly, "The Algonquin Round Table": a character "references" the Round Table was kept, while two others (which also similarly reference the Table specifically in context) were removed. Could you clear up where it is policy to differentiate between the two? From my standpoint, it seems like a personal mission, rather than a positive contribution. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Editing is inherently personal; we're not algorithms. You may disagree with some of my judgements, which is how wikipedia works.
 * The policy is that I edit out items which I don't think add to readers knowledge or understanding of the topic - frequently they are "this thing was mentioned in a TV show I like" or variants thereof. As a general rule, if the article topic was the title of a work, as compared to being referenced by characters, I have left it.
 * Unlike many people I'm a big fan of pop-culture sections; I think they add valuable context to many topics by showing that they have a presence in the current world. But they can, as you know, very easily turn into endless lists of fancruft that are so long and clumsy that they are unreadable and useless. Trimming out what I judge to be peripheral items is my attempt to make them more useful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks. I do agree editing is personal; but I do not believe it should be coupled with preference. I'm not sure that "policy" can be defined by one's personal approach to editing. Since we are not algorithms (bots); that is why the community at large has put in place specifics policies as guidelines: to curb personal preference. Contributing content on the basis of: "this thing was mentioned in a TV show I like" is equal to removing content on the basis of: "I edit out items which I don't think add ... " or "I think they add ...." or "Trimming out what I judge to be ..." I do believe some of your edits have been made with a personal across-the-board approach rather than supported by what should / can be added bases on WP policy: i.e. "If it's mentioned in a show, it must go." A good slogan for a T-shirt, but I'm not sure that is a rule by which all removals can be Universally applied. That being said, it is good to know that this type of edit is more personal than policy and can be reverted if WP policy supports its inclusion. Again, thanks for your personal explanation. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ted
On the Nantucket article. Saw you contributed. Perhaps The blow back from Ted Cruz use of the limerick is worth a mention. Biden with a big cock is definitely trending. 75.178.86.77 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

area code selection
Regarding your [|your "Granite geek" story about area codes], I'm going to say "you were hoodwinked". What you need to remember is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source!

What this means, if you want to retain credibility, is that when you want to repeat something you have read in WP, you should first check the source provided in WP and cite that source. In this case, the content you cited from the WP article did not even include a citation. (I have now deleted that content, but we'll see how long it remains deleted.)

Also, one source from an AT&T engineer was found to support the claim about assignments based on number of pulses. It's a memo written 30 years after the 1947 assignments, of course it would be preferable to have a more contemporaneous source, though I am skeptical that there has been a thorough search of Bell System Technical Journal for any story that might provide further elaboration on how the initial area codes were assigned. Fabrickator (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have done a follow-up: "Maybe I wasn't so wrong after all" https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2021/11/16/wait-maybe-i-wasnt-so-wrong-after-all/ - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Machu Picchu
Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. i respectfully disagree with your edit here. i understand your point about Machu "Peach" Picchu's notability. What is notable is that Machu Picchu is the wrong page to find out about Machu Picchu. The purpose of a hatnote, as i understand it, is to guide people as quickly and efficiently as possible to the information they want. That guide should not be hidden in a "See also" section. i also think Disambiguation in general does not belong in a "See also" section. "See also" implies, "here are some related topics." Disambiguation and hatnotes tend to be more like, "here are some unrelated topics that happen to have the same name." Are you willing to revert your revert?

In any event, please be aware that for some reason, hatnote templates replace # with § ,which results in piped links. For example, if i type

it becomes

even though
 * example § See also

and
 * example§See also

are broken links to
 * example

TL;DR? you broke the link to Young Wizards § Peach instead of Young Wizards. i'll change that, at least.

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)