User talk:David in DC/Archive 3

Sebastian Bonnet
Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments. Ryoung 122 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A wise man once said "[D]eletion review is best used for contested deletions." You contest this deletion.  Follow the rules, please. David in DC (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical issue: How can you add a "deletion review" to a page that doesn't exist? The page had to be re-created first. If you wish to list this on deletion review, be my guest. But if the only issue was lack of sources (and there are plenty) then there was no issue, the article should exist, and the deletion for the third time shouldn't have happened. Ryoung 122 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical solution: The page does not have to be recreated first.  The deletion review page quite explicitly lays out the steps for requesting review of a deletion.  It does not include recreating the page.  Instead, if unable to resolve the issue by directly contacting the closing admin, one adds a bit of code that's helpfully provided on the deletion review page to the active discussion part of that very same page. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest: some people don't like porn on Wikipedia, and there is a campaign by some to delete porn-related articles. But given the wide currency that this name has, I'm sure that in the end, this is no Franken-Coleman contest. It's more a Saxby Chambliss-Jim Martin one. Ryoung 122 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest: some people think biographies of living people can rely on imdb, iafd and/or one of Luke Ford's blogs exclusively. These people are wrong.


 * There's nothing wrong with porn on Wikipedia. There's everything wrong with posting alleged information about living people without references to WP:reliable sources.  IMDB, IAFD, LukeFord.com, lukeisback.com, etc. are not reliable sources.  # of Google hits alone does not establish notability.


 * If one wanted to create a proper article, one might look among all those darn Google hits. Even if one never found any reliable sources, one would get to view a whole lot of nifty pictures.  Best not to try it from work though.  Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * David in DC, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. The issue is not porn as something to view per se, but issues of history, fairness, equal treatment, legitimacy, respect. True, even the porn world uses people...one day they're "famous," the next day someone else is. But should this rush to the latest fad lead to a deletion/erasure of those who have gone before, especially if they left a mark? Bonnet won the "Freshman of the Year" in 2004; he is not a marginal player. He also passes the "Google hits" test. Further, what is the rationale for deletion? Why does not article not qualify when others do?


 * There are other issues as well. True, this may be a character, not a real person, so should "biographies of living person" really apply?


 * Finally, your comment about "nifty pictures" and "best not to try it from work though" is offensive. You are suggesting a lower, base motive for my support of this article's creation. Let me be honest: I do not have this star's DVDs or tapes. "Not try it from work" is a typical de-legitimating comment.


 * However, as Coretta Scott King once said, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This is a human rights issue, one of respect, legitimation. While some porn companies have treated their subjects like dirt, Bel Ami has won awards for treating its subjects humanely. That Bonnet chose to become a director of Bel Ami after his career was up says a lot about the quality of the organization. After all, no one who was "exploited" would want to exploit others in turn. Ryoung 122  13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sebastian Bonnet
Yeah, I saw that, but thanks for letting me know. I'll just leave it for now to see if he can turn up any reliable sources. If not, I'll bring it back to AfD. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Baltes
Regarding your edit here:

Revision as of 06:14, 6 January 2009 (edit) (undo)David in DC (Talk | contribs) (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)Next edit →

Maybe it's not a "political attack," but it sure looks suspiciously like a vendetta, as I am the same editor, and your comments are similar to the Sebastian Bonnet debate.

The irony is that Paul Baltes, along with his wife, developed a method of measuring "wisdom." Just yesterday you claim that a "wise man" does X, but now you question the wisdom of having an article on a man who was the world's leading expert on "wisdom." Ryoung 122 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, you see a vendetta where there is none. On my blog yesterday (same name as here), I wrote about a Yiddish aphorism I learned from my grandmother and unwittingly transmitted to my son. Last night, I was up past midnight reading snitches and snatches of numerous Google searches. I was looking for more about folk wisdom from Germany or Poland, or in Yiddish. Serendipity and Murphy's Law conspired to dump me at the Baltes page. I was startled to find you at the top of the edit history.
 * I explain all this in greater detail than necessary because I have now perused more on your talk page than just the recent Bonnet stuff and conclude that it's best to explain once and disengage. Good fortune to you, sir. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting topics
Interesting topics I can add to is what I look for, not peeking at what you are doing for malice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving vent to my inner deletionist
Do I seem so wrong here? David in DC (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's now archived with no response except from the editor whose edits I question. Kinda disappointing.  Maybe I'm right, maybe he's right, but zero interest in this series of edits by anyone other than the two of us really troubles me. David in DC (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabriella Fox
You're welcome. Thanks for the revision and help. Hoang.pham19 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category Removal
Thank you for reverting the category removal at Lisa Ann. I had HotCat enabled and didn't understand how it worked and I must have removed the category. Thanks again. Farmercarlos (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request of anyone who watches this page
Some dolt at my place of work has gotten our IP address blocked. It's only for a day or two, at least for now, and I don't really desparately need access to WP at work. But a page I monitor, Shy Love, has a determined IP editor inserting unsourced personal biographical details. In my view, the insertions violate WP:BLP. Would you please look at the page and see if you agree? If so, would you please take appropriate action? If I ever find out who Toastman5 is, I'll fart in his/her general direction and indicate that his/her mother was a hamster and his/her father smelt of elderberries. David in DC (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funniest movie ever. Aleta  Sing 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFO
I use WP:IRC and flagged an oversighter down. Best to use WP:RFO with Special:EmailUser/Oversight to avoid attention.  MBisanz  talk 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I tried to react fast.  I'll try to react fast and right next time. :) David in DC (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work, that was something that needed oversighting.  MBisanz  talk 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Adams
I appreciate the good faith and restraint the editors who disagree with me have shown in the discussion of Sam Adams. Everybody seems to be showing the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and give important matters due consideration. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category deletions
Please stop deleting categories while the thread you started about them on WP:BLPN is active.  Will Beback   talk    20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thread is about Frank DeGratto. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think there are separate issues for the others then maybe you should start a thread on each. To me, they all seem to have the same principles involved. If I'm wrong, please explain how they're different.   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, we edit articles, especially BLP's, one at a time. Your mass reversion of my edits is unconstructive. David in DC (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits also appeard to be "mass". I don't see any individual discussion and you used the same edit summary in each case. Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions.   Will Beback    talk    21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions." Agreed. David in DC (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

King
In common law, IIRC, felonies have prison terms of over 1 year, while lesser sentences are given for misdemeanors. A four-day sentence for contempt of court hardly seems equivalent to a felony conviction. However, if you want to assert that if LaGrotta deserves the category then so does King feel free to make that argument. It appears spurious to me.  Will Beback   talk    21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wow, thank you
No problem. They evidence of visiting old ponds was compelling. KnightLago (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened before, but I doubt mass rollback would work as others have edited many of the same articles after him. You could just go through his contributions and remove any that you feel are incorrect or inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a question at the bot request you made. Please take a look when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk)

Disagreeing
Disagreeable? Do you mean calling a bizarre suggestion "bizarre"? I was referring to the suggestion, not to the editor. That's no more out of line than calling other proposals "BLP violations". So long as we're commenting on the edits (or proposals), and not the editors, I don't think there's a problem.  Will Beback   talk    07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I ever use these edit summaries, seriatem, and claim I'm not being disagreeable, please trout-slap me, quick
"bad edit"

"bizarre"

"deleted for no good reason"

"doesn't even make sense"

Cheers, David in DC (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand...
All of the totally constructive recent edits with the totally constructive edit summary "sharper cat" are a sight to behold. Bravo, Will. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality
It's still wrong. Please see the relevant Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deal W. Hudson
Done! Regards. V1t 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I've put some more refs for this info. I thought this was a well known fact, that is why i provided only one ref 4 this info (from Hudson himself). I hope U can choose more reliable refs now (and remove the old ref for this info). Regards! V1t 12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not the editors
A number of your recent comments and edit summaries have focused on me as an individual, which is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. This posting, for example, has little to do with the subject matter and seems mostly to be a complaint about my behavior. If you wish to complain about me then the right places to do so are on my user talk page or through one of the dispute resolution boards.  Will Beback   talk    21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
Cheers, David in DC (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Springies
Man that Freehold edit is getting old, time to put a hidden comment? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about oxygen and sex but the article probably gets vandalised just as much! It's more my reversions that have shaped the article than my additions. I couldn't believe it when that hotdog stand rivalry bubbled over into this article! I've added the hidden comment now (see here). It may seem a little over the top but it'll do the trick. At least it's not like the one on Michael Ballack. I laughed my arse off when I first saw that! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never saw that before. It's hilarious.  Your hidden comment is much more understated.  It looks foolproof.  Until a greater fool comes along, anyway. David in DC (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good little link there! The constructive capitalist in me (or is it the Marxist socialist?) regards such gains as not just ill-gotten, but fraudulent and theft! People's ignorance and complicity is this process is, in no hyperbolic terms, responsible for a good portion of economic problems. Good stuff. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Pedon
Thanks for your hard work on this article. I've left a note on the talk page of the article, and I'm hoping you can respond there. None of the sources used seem to pass WP:RS and there is no way to verify her death. I'm of the opinion that her birth/date dates should be removed from the article because frankly, those are completely without sourcing. Cheers. Law type! snype? 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen GAR notification
Bruce Springsteen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been a big help
A long time ago you helped me on List of Honorific titles page, Can you give your opinion on it on this page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination) Kelvin Martinez (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FOX AND HOUND appears to be a hoax
I asked a friend from Penn if he ever heard of F&H. I sense it is a hoax, given the lack of footnotes and a direct lift from text I provided on three Yale societies.

Let me hear from you on this. I'll wait to hear from you before I go to "the powers that ween" at Wikipedia.SLY111 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111

Ref name tag
Hi,

If you're making a ref name tag, the proper formatting is for the first one, subsequent references use. The slash before the terminal > is what is important, and makes the unnecessary. Thought you'd be interested, given your recent edits to The Awareness Center. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Thanks for the advice. David in DC (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey David - good to see you're editing again. It's now been more than a year since I asked if you'd be interested in being nominated for adminship, so I thought I'd try again. The process to get adminship can be a little unpleasant, and I'm not sure whether you'd be successful (that's no slight on you, but rather on the somewhat arbitrary basis of many users' support/oppose decisions), but we can always use more BLP-sensitive admins. Anyway, let me know, and either way it's nice to see you back. Steve Smith (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, for context, I used to be Sarcasticidealist. It's been a while. Steve Smith (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Steve: I knew who you were. I'm tickled that you noticed me back and renewed the suggestion. Thank you.
 * But no thanks, I can't devote the time, and I don't need the aggravation. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied by e-mail. Steve Smith (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't access home e-mail from work. I'll read and respond tonight. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jake Brahm
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jake Brahm. 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/Jake Brahm (2nd nomination). 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) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kelly O'Dell
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kelly O'Dell. 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/Kelly O'Dell. 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) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tennis vandal
I was fully expecting those ones to be vandalistic as well, but this edit conforms to what's in List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions (and has been there for a long time) and this one's consistent with both List of French Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions. Weird. As to what we can do, I've added the I.P.'s talk page to my watchlist, and I'll do spot checks of its contributions over the next week or so to see if it's resumed editing and, if it is, whether the edits are vandalism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Steve Smith (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)