User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 2

Re: WWI veterans
Apparently, being a WWI survivor until this date does merit an article. If you look at that list, you'll note that all verified WWI veterans have their own article, and most of them are not notable in any other way than having served in WWI and surviving until this day (This is not meant in a disrespectful way towards the veterans, btw, I'm just saying it plainly to get the message across). I'm giving up on this, I can spend my time much better than to fight sillyness and self promotion. Er rab ee 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Species integration
An article that you have been involved in editing, Species integration, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Species integration. Thank you. Fred Hsu 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A thank you
David, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I wonder who I pissed off that time :) Caknuck 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Postmodern African American Homosexuals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have a barnstar?...
Hi, this page WP:AFC/D says you hand out barnstars to people who have created more than 5 articles in 5 days well... umm *ahem*... could I please have one, sir? Check the backlog history - I've cleared most of April 2007 and helped close several other months. Cheers --Bennyboyz3000 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks :-) --Bennyboyz3000 22:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done again :-| --Bennyboyz3000 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... did I do something wrong? :-) --Bennyboyz3000 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and I know I'm a pest but could you please give me the afc barnstar (I can't count how many i've reviewed and none of them the cheating mass-moderated way)? Much appreciated! --Bennyboyz3000 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Grossman
Ah, that makes more sense, thanks. I agree on the runner, and have added a disambig note to Eric Grossman. As for the hurricane researcher, since he's only listed in a minor way at this time, as the author of a citation, I don't think it's worth making a complete disambig page, since there's really not anything solid to link to. If it does turn out that he's notable enough for a separate bio later, we can easily create a disambig page at that time. How's that sound? --Elonka 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's much tougher to accept articles!
Sure you can quote me with:"It's much tougher to accept articles!" after all its under GFDL! And thanks for the Barnstar - its the first one I have ever got. Graeme Bartlett 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: your message on my talk page
Sure thing - just realized that, sorry. --Bennyboyz3000 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebenezer, Saskatchewan
When I peeked at page history I only see you...How do I find this other user? Thank you for your note BTWSriMesh | talk  04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my goodness! I didn't know of this process of the AFC.  I will let the barnstar stand, as if you hadn't been there to do the copying process, the article still wouldn't have been created, however, I will also say hello to this other user, and thank you!  SriMesh |  talk  04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

articles on journals
Not that anything you say is the least wrong, but I have expanded somewhat on the talk page for User:Journals88--there's been a good deal of prior discussion on this. I'm not sure just what your specialty is, but it is by no means certain that all journals from that particular publisher are notable. For example,in most fields of biological sciences, I would be very skeptical of most claims for journals not included in WebofScience. But glad to have you aboard!DGG (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC Drive - Last Day!
As I write this message, we officially have 2 hours left before the end of the drive. Prizes will be awarded tomorrow, so don't worry, I haven't forgotten. It's been a great drive, with tons of work accomplished. Thanks, everyone. GrooveDog GrooveBot 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Automaticlly delivered by GrooveBot at 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC drive
Just so you know, I made my fifth article. Cheers,  Je tL ov e r (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it just ended. I think it was great! We got 4600 articles reviewed! Cheers,  Je tL ov e r (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Damn
Ah, we got close enough. We cleared out maybe 3/4 of the backlog - you managed to swipe that Gold Wiki Award away from me at the last minute (:-P) - and we've only a few months left that can be safely mass-moderated. We did good. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jan Tománek
Looks fine now - my concern is generally references, but also appears to meet notoriety as well. SkierRMH 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing taht one up that I put in. From the AFC drive I had a couple of speedy deletes that I know of, both for copyvios, one I put in myself. Graeme Bartlett 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

acne
Hi, you edited my text on skin and acne. This is about an exfoliating technique that I found extremely positive in acne problems. I believe this kind of related alternative medicine needs to be known from users searching on skin problems. Can you revert? thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Please read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia then discuss this on the talk pages of the articles. In general, "I've found whatever to be helpful" is not grounds for inclusion.  See verifiability and no original research for more.  It is unlikely other editors will support the edit.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for an article to be created
Hi David, I notice that you are active on requests for article creation. I've actually put an article forward because there is one article I can't create myself, which is Infra Corporation. I actually work for them, so I'm following this process. However, I notice that the Articles for creation page tells me not to submit the article as I'm a registered user. However, Conflict of Interest guidelines state that I shouldn't really create the article. Should the articles for creation warning be modified slightly? Also, in your opinion, do you think that I have done the right thing here? I'm trying to show good faith editing here, especially as I'm a long-time administrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. That wasn't the response that I expected. I am a well-respected, long time editor and administrator of Wikipedia. I am also an Australian with an English background (I have English and Irish blood). My username is an in joke. Sorry, the last sentence I wrote came out wrong, so I've removed it. I was just surprised (even a little insulted!) by the response... I guess I'm just saying I understand how the site works, as I actually started things like WP:AN, and have also done things like modified policy correctly. I just don't want a conflict of interest in this one article. The COI noticeboard is interesting, I didn't know of this. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC), modified 09:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to Mentor
Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC Backlog Drive
''You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!''

Helen Keller photo is PD
Hi, David. Just to let you know, that Helen Keller photo is in the public domain. The change from 100 years to 120 years did not go into effect until 1998, and the 100-year term expired at the end of 1988, almost ten years earlier. This is a great fact pattern. I teach copyright law, and I'll use this as an example next time I have to discuss how section 303 works. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright law and commentary pages I've read don't call out this exception... It's not an "exception," actually. It's merely that the law was different at the relevant time. From 1978-1987, the rule was (cutting to the essentials here) creation+100. Anything that was up for expiration in that timeframe played by that rule. In 1998 (might as well have been 1/1/1998, since expirations only occur at end-of-year), the law changed to creation+120. So anything that would previously have ben up for expiration in 1998 or later played by the new rule.

Did the old law cover photographs which were never published prior to 1998? Yes. Essentially, prior to 1978, unpublished works were covered by state copyright. Starting in 1978 it was all federalized, and for works like this, previously created, but not published or otherwise copyrighted, there was a special rule: we'll treat this just like any other work, except that copyright will last until at least through 2002; and if it gets published by that time, at least through 2027 (later changed to 2047). This assured at least a 25-year copyright (1978-2002) for unpublished works, and 50 years (1978-2027), later 70 years (1978-2047) for published works. Apart from that provision, they played by any other work's rules. Those rules were, for an anonymous work, the lesser of creation+100 or publication+75. Here, that's the lesser of 1888+100=1988 or 2008+75=2083; or 1988. Note that if this photo had been taken 10 years later, in 1898, its 100 years would have been up in 1998, and it would have been scheduled for expiration at the end of 1998; but the 20-year extension also kicked in in 1998, which would have let given it another 20 years, to 2018.

Please update-and-improve any Wikipedia and Wikimedia copyright-related FAQs.... I'd be happy to. Could you point me to them? TJRC (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Emperor's Room
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Emperor's Room, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Emperor's Room is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Emperor's Room, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"descendants of"
Oops. I'm not sure how that happened :) I re-added it. Morhange (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yearbooks & Diplomas
How exactly does one cite a yearbook or a diploma? I could see why my word (or my dad's) couldn't be counted as a source, but in regards to sources, how exactly does one cite these things? Morhange (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yearbooks would be cited the same as any other book. See WP:CITE for info. A diploma is unpublished and probably should not be cited unless it is part of a collection available for public inspection.  For example, President Kennedy's high school diploma may be at his Presidential library and available for citation.  Many universities and some high schools and school districts keep graduation programs on file in a way that can be cited, talk to the university librarian.  Newspapers may also publish lists of graduates, that would make a much better and easier to cite source.
 * In general, only college degrees would be considered encyclopedic. However, since he was a "home town mayor" his graduating from the local high school may be useful.
 * The purpose of a citation is so someone could look up the information if they were so inclined. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NASA template in Talk:Apollo 11
Thanks for bringing the reopening of the discussion to my attention. My first inkling of the discussion was seeing the template deleted in the Apollo 11 article. I was shocked; this seems like a worthwhile template. TJRC (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for the note. It's nice to get something well formatted in return - and I hope the Slashdot link I provided offered some insight into the possibility it is a hoax. However, I did not feel it necessary to include _that_ link on the main page for the article. (TPMS) Being an embedded software programmer, I understand the possibility of signal leakage, and what-not... so indeed, I can concur with the thought that this may be a possible "security concern". So, in all, yes, do restore that portion of the article when you feel it necessary. Sullivan.t (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Line of succession to the British Throne
Thanks. I was planning to do this earlier but I forgot about it. They never served a purpose because they were proposals for splitting Line of succession to the British Throne which were never implemented. I've requested all the pages to be deleted per WP:CSD. PeterSymonds | talk  07:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the remaining two were done by User:DBD, so you might want to ask him whether he wants to keep them. PeterSymonds | talk  08:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

botnet articles
I know all about Storm botnet for what its worth, not sure if that was directed at me for the check it out reference--I wrote most of it. :) I just added whatever I could find right off, to save everyone a possible time sink of an AFD. ;) I wouldn't mind doing another like this, if it's as interesting. Lawrence §  t / e  17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Queen City Yacht Club (Toronto), Toronto Island Sailing Club, Island Yacht Club
No problems. I created these articles as part of a tidy up of article Toronto Islands, and in remedying some mis-links I found doing this. The content is not mine, and I have no view on whether they are notable or not.-- Chris j wood (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

David S. Gruder
Hello. Recently, an article that I had written, David Gruder, was deleted. I read through all of the comments made and have made revisions, but have changed the article to David S. Gruder. Since your comments truly guided me, would you edit it or at least guide me in the correct direction as to what else I need to do? Thank you so much for your help.Traceylott (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
I really appreciate your assistance and ethics about the David S. Gruder page. I am going to get more secondary sources to add to the article.--Traceylott (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional edits for David S. Gruder
I have added additional sources for David S. Gruder. Would you please let me know if these are satisfactory as references for notability? Thank you very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylott (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David S. Gruder--a few more questions.
First, thank you, thank you for all of your assistance! I made changes as you suggested. However, if I mention the Political Intelligence Rating Tool, isn't that sort of spammish since he is using it to leverage The New IQ? Also, I have physically viewed his three awards--how do I cite this? I couldn't seem to find anything relating to this. Should I inline cite ACEP, San Diego Book Awards and Collier's websites for references? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylott (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edict of Turda
Thanks for letting me know about splitting out Edict of Turda from Patent of Toleration; that looks like a good idea. Kingdon (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My Award
It must be because I have more than one account (did not register email address and thus could not regain password once I lost it) - but as to be fair I will remove the medal and replace with one more suitable to this account. Thanks for providing the link which identifies how long I have been registered as I didn not know how to tell this. --Energizer07 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Appologies, didn't realise I placed my last message on your userpage --Energizer07 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're mates
Thanks, I've added a less friendly warning! Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers
You raise an interesting question, but unfortunately I do not have a good answer. Since I do not know which way is correct, I went ahead and created a redirect from Cathy McMorris-Rodgers to Cathy McMorris Rodgers. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

HEY
Dont worry I am off wikipedia for good now on all my accounts!--Energizer07 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

re:
I have serious misgivings about deletion tags on album articles. These articles exist as matters of convention and convenience to the reader, and the (over) strict adherence to notability guidelines does people a disservice. Their content is encyclopedic, and if the presence of a stand-alone article makes you uncomfortable, you should by all means consider merging the information into the parent article. But removing the information through deletion (or notability tags, which are keys to deletion) is simply discourteous. Chubbles (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, you're not trying to understand me. Or, trying to not understand me. The convention of creating album pages for all the albums by an artist predates the strict notability/MIRS sourcing requirements for every individual page. People put up album pages because it's convenient to have the information on a clickable stand-alone page. Think of it from the user-end standpoint (something we do precious little of here at Wiki). For my part, I think it's frankly worthless to think about whether an album is the subject of multiple sources or not, if the artist has a page, but I refuse to quibble over this minor matter of policy with people. What I am certain of is that the track listings of albums is inherently encyclopedic. If you find an album page which you wish to have removed from the encyclopedia, I wish that you would instead merge the tracklist with either a discography page or the parent musician's article, since all of the information on the album page should be recorded here somewhere. Chubbles (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard for me to tell whether you're being flippant or not. I guess it doesn't matter; do as you wish. I'm only one voice, and a rather lonely one on this matter. Chubbles (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, then. I will say that gunning down album pages is rather in vogue, and if you decide to take it up as a hobby you'll find little opposition, especially if you aim at demos and mixtapes. The policy changes have superseded the convention, and so many editors see themselves as "setting things aright" in doing so. I disagree, but like I said, I am in a minority. Chubbles (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Age
He was born in 1991. Ive known him since I was about 7 or 8, and he was in a couple of classes with me in elementary school. unsigned comment by 04:08, 22 April 2008 Emmure 89

note: moved from User_Talk:davidwr/Jordan Francis davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jordan
It's done, except I don't know if/how it's possible to change/conceal the edit history. many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Radical Party of Great Britain
Thank you for putting the AFD closure notice on the talk page above. I realized this morning that I hadn't done it (because I redirected and got distracted by that) and went to do it, but saw that you had it taken care of. I appreciate you catching my mistake and fixing it! - Philippe 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BRF Pic
The Belgian Royal Family website used to have a section listing pictures were permitted for reproduction or something to that effect, but I can't find the page now. I would assume though, the right one should be the PD one. Morhange (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting president in infobox
Hi Davidwr, I am contacting you in regard to a discussion that you started about the mention of the Acting presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their respective infobox. The user that added them, User:Energizer07, claimed that there is Wikipedia policy to support the additions and thus should stay in the infobox. I contacted the user on April 20 and asked if he could point me to such policy; he deleted my message and did not respond. So on April 25, I reverted the edits citing no response from the user. Well apparently he was upset (see the message here) and makes it seem like I'm the one failed to abide by Wikipedia policy. He now has changed his story and says that it is cited material, so it should stay. Well I responded to him here, outlining my arguments and why his assertions are incorrect.

Any help or guidance you can offer is most appreciated. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I appologize for removing the RFC template. I did not know that they were meant to be archived, and I now see that it was indeed a mistake. My sincerest apologies. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA?
I'm willing to nominate you for adminship if you're interested. Your dedicated management of Articles for creation has prepared you to evaluate when articles should be deleted. Please read up on the Requests for adminship process, then reply on my talk page.

On an unrelated matter, I suggest that you archive your talk page, which is growing too long for users with low bandwidth to load. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback
Hiya Davidwr. I've fulfilled your request for the rollback tool. Please feel free to ask if you need any pointers (I'm fairly certain you don't) Pedro : Chat  20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya. Simple answer -yes! Rollback reverts all changes by editor X (IP or logged in account) on a given page to the last version that was by another editor. It does not revert all their other edits. So, for example. Vandal X alters a page. Good Editor Y undoes that edit. Vandal X edits again. Vandal X edits yet again. You rollback. It will revert to the edit by Editor Y. Another example. Vandal X defaces Cheese. Vandal X then defaces Wine. Vandal X then defaces Wine again. You click rollback on the Wine article. All of Vandal X's edit to Wine are undone, but the bad edits to Cheese remain. Rollback is very, very quick and efficent but it has limitations. Generally it is used when looking at clear bad faith accounts through Special:Contributions/Vandal X to easily hit rollback and remove vandalism fast. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Smith County etc.
I don't know what the difference is. It's the standard practice nationwide to list municipalities by type, even if the difference is not significant. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the Census Bureau's Factfinder website: it lists municipalities by type. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Taproot Audio Design
Thanks for your advice regarding my first Wiki article, although I take slight issue with your "get in the real world comments". That's not necessary. Anyway, I'm not posting this to argue. I'm working on getting my 3rd party sources together to merit a worthy article. I have added one reliable 3rd party link regarding my discography and "notabilty".

Questions:

1. I have several articles written about Taproot Audio Design, but can't seem to find archive links (still looking). Would listing the Publication, date and title of the article suffice? Scanning the articles? 2. Would listing links to "notable" artists I've worked with suffice? I've seen this on other "notable" studio Wiki listings.

Thanks.

Taprootaudio (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dead-tree sources are perfectly acceptable. See Citing sources for help.  I'm not sure what you mean by "links to notable artists" but let's say your discography included a Beatles album:  I would fully expect you to wikilink to Beatles and to the album itself.  I would of course expect you to cite a paper or electronic source that showed you had a hand in the album.  For non-notable works it's not required.  Ask yourself "If Encyclopedia Brintannica came out with an unabridged encyclopedia where space was not a factor, what would be in their article about my company?"  The answer would be "not your entire discography."  Odds are, it would be half a page or less listing your corporate HQ, a brief statement about what your company does, possibly your officers, and if there are any, your well-known clients or projects.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks for finding the online source on some of my references. Secondly regarding the partial list of clients, I deleted them until I can get better clarification on what I need to provide. Links to CD and title w/ credits. I can provide this for some and others, people will just have to pick up a CD. Anyway, I'm married to the idea of having them there. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprootaudio (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you are welcome. If you have a partial list of clients, it should not be in the form of an advertisement. If the client has their own wiki page, put in a wikilink and nothing more.  If they don't, put in a link to either the main web site for the client or, if there is only 1 project for the client, the main web site for the project.  Sadly, if you link to a web site that appears to be a sales or marketing web site, it will probably be removed by a future editor.  In the case where the main web site to the client or project is a marketing or sales site, it is better to leave it unlinked than to appear to be spamming.  See WP:NOT, particularly section 2.  By the way, on Wikipedia, being married to any idea other than the idea of building an encyclopedia is a bad idea:  If your goal and the goals of Wikipedia are ever in conflict, Wikipedia's goals will eventually prevail. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Taprootaudio 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we to the point of removing the cleanup tag? I don't want to have to go through another cleanup or marathon edit if it's not there.


 * Tags serve as a "to-do list" of sorts. In the spirit of teaching a man to fish, I recommend you read TC then replace the existing "rewrite" tag with all tags that are still relevant.  Also, walk through the article and see if there are any sections or sentences that need individual tags.  Then, either place the tags as a reminder of what needs to be done or fix the problem on the spot.  If there are more than 3 tags at the top of the page when you are done, consider using the articleissues tag to save space.  If you do this correctly, you will become a much better Wikipedia editor.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Taprootaudio 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks. I've read through TC and want to read more thoroughly. Your advice makes total sense. I'll dwell on it and edit later. On the subject of "teach a man to fish", I'm as green as a sapling on Wikipedia Editing, but I'm a hell of a fisherman. I'll return the favor any time. ;)

Ron Stone
Yeah, I just heard about it on the news, unfortunately I had to leave almost immediately after I tagged the article. Hopefully other people were on the ball in my absence.--Hourick (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark
Hi. The source is here. He's #3356 (3351-3355 are Catholics, therefore excluded). Regards, Craigy (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Prestonwood Baptist Edits
Davidwr,

Thank you for keeping an eye on the Prestonwood Baptist page. I agree with your points in the discussion page and will just let you handle it as you appear to know a lot more about what you're doing than I do with this stuff. I'd also like to ask you to please take a look and keep an eye on the page for Jack Graham (pastor) as there have been several editors recently on that page making unverifiable and inappropriate edits including personal information that is against wiki policy. Thanks again!Johnb316 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi-article wrapper to Pywikipedia
Is there a multi-article wrapper for the tools on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/view/Pywikipedia, particularly reflinks.py? I'd like to run it against 50-odd articles in a human-assisted-bot format, so that as soon as I save a page it goes on to the next one in the list. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The framework is a minimalist port of pywikipedia all the scripts with the exception of PDFbot came from there. While a bot framework many of the scripts allow running in "human assisted" mode.  Another method is to use the bellow javascript as a bookmarklet, open the pages in tabs, click on the bookmarklet, and move to the next page as it is processing.

javascript:location="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/reflinks.py?page="+wgPageName
 * I should note that I will not be implmenting multi-aticle anything as this should be left to the specilized tools. Reflinks.py is being run every few months by User:DumZiBoT.  — Dispenser 02:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At The Death House Door
Thanks for helping me capitalize the title. How did you do that exactly, I spent an hour yesterday trying to figure that out. And why can't I get the poster to appear for ATDHD? Tmuzzatti (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:MOVE for details on moving/renaming articles. As far as the movie poster, you have to put [[Image:thepostername.jpg]] where Image:thepostername.jpg is the image file you uploaded.  By the way, instead of just putting up the poster, I encourage you to use the  template.  See the movie Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace for an example.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jack Graham (Pastor)
Davidwr, concerning your remark on my talk page about the [Jack Graham (Pastor)] page, if you will review the pages of other well known pastors like John McArthur, Jerry Vines, and John, you'll find that their theological distinctives, such as this one, are included, but not every theological belief that is common to their denomination. Since you made MAJOR contributions to the Arminian page, I'm sure you're aware that the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is a hot one among Baptist, and Dr. Graham has spoken out against Calvinist many times. I had previously cited Dr. Graham's sermon where he publicly berated Calvinist (fact, not opinion), but the administrator for Powerpoint, wiki user, DirkMavs, removed the sermon so I couldn't cite the remarks that Dr. Graham said.Doublet89 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian music: reply
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied to it briefly there, but suggest that, if there is any follow up to be done, it take place on Talk:Christian music in the "External links: advertising?" section, not on our own talk pages. Is that OK? (Changing subject a little: I like your recent reversion in that article to a couple of previous edits. Good. Thanks.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties..?
A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Race and Robert Knox
Just to be clear, if a white murders a black in a famous murder, and no new legislation results, and blacks decide not to riot, wikipedia should not mention that the killer was white. If this is not so, tell me otherwise.
 * Of course Wikipedia should not mention the killer is white without a good reason. Now, if blacks make a point of not rioting, then that becomes interesting.  But if they simply don't riot, then "ho hum" race isn't worth mentioning.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2 additional questions to your RFA
Hi, Thanks for adding the questions, I just answered them. Izzy007 Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals
Sorry about that. I posted my views on User:Rlevse's talk page if you're interested. Thanks for the e-mail as well. That was incredibly polite of you; I wish more users were as kind. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've continued the conversation there. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

redirs
I didn't delete them, it's MZMcBride doing the deleting. See his talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Prestonwood Baptist Church page
Hi I liked your positive spin on the Joe Barron incident. I edited it to give it a little more clarity and to be sure that it didn't look like someone was trying to cover up what happened.Floridapeaches (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

davidwr wrote: Since you made MAJOR contributions to the Arminian page. I do not remember making any such edits recently, and I could not find them in the recent logs for Arminianism. I am not particularly familiar with or interested in Arminianism as a topic. Maybe you are thinking Prestonwood Baptist Church, which I did edit heavily during the recent news events surrounding one of their former pastors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * David, you are so right - I had you confused with another David. Please accept my apology and thank you for your clarification.Doublet89 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you placed an opinion from the Dallas Morning News on the Prestonwood Baptist Church page regarding the Joe Barron incident. Do you think that it is appropriate to add an opinion here? That page also includes the opinion of a reader who says what the preacher did wasn't very Christian at all. Since this is an encyclopedia, do you think it's right to a newspaper opinion about what they think church members must think? This is an opinion of an assumed opinion, without any opposing opinions. I appreciate your attempt, but I think it violates NPOV and is non encyclopedic. I have not reverted it, and await your response before doing so.Romans9:11 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a correction to the statement above...the sourced article by David was actually an "Editorial" not an opinion which is of course a big difference and gives it credibility as the DMN editorial board wrote this not some random reader with no credibility. If this was simply an opinion page than I would def agree with you Romans whether the comment was positive or negative.Dirkmavs (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dirkmavs you are a real troublemaker - if you'll follow the link, the section in which this is in is called "OPINION" It doesn't say "op-ed" or "Editorial", it says "opinion."  If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Dallas Morning News.  Good grief!  I saw that another user on the discussion page also questioned the validity of the opinion, but I've asked David because I'm not as well versed in Wiki rules and don't want to start an edit war.Romans9:11 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Romans,

A- I do not appreciate the personal attack you just made on me B- If you look at the headline of the source it is as follow..."Editorial: Prestonwood Church does the right thing"

Am I missing something here? I don't see how you can disagree that this is an editorial statement agreed upon by the editorial board of the most respected news organization in DFW. Yes it is technically an opinion of the editorial board but it so much more than just an "opinion" like you want to state it as the editorial board carries weight and speaks for the newspaper as a whole and in many ways the community. This is one of the pettiest disagreements i've ever heard of. Dirkmavs (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)