——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————
Welcome. |
Just came to tell you I replied to your question. Reply
Hey this is Bobby Birch, and Ive already spoken with "Inspector 34" or whatever he calls himself, and please stop deleting my material! I am serious. Just stop. Its an article on an Alaskan school! Give me a break, it means nothing to you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bobbybirch (
talk •
contribs)
02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Response here
S TOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP changing my page fool! leave the grace page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.152.26 ( talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-- 117.193.98.33 ( talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)== Article on Fubra ==
Hi David,
Regarding this article that you have moved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmaunders/Fubra
I created the Fubra Limited article as I noticed there were some other existing pages on wikipedia about sites we (Fubra) own, and so I thought it would make sense to create a page about our company and link these articles in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Price_Crash
I thought it would be useful to readers to be able to follow the link where our name was mentioned to get some background information on us.
I have read the relevant wikipedia policies but I still think the creation of a page on Fubra by me is justified.
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable.
I am happy to go through the article and make sure that any Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has a reliable source, as per the Wikipedia policies.
Sources
Hi David, I have added in some references. Could you have a look over what I have done so far and offer your opinion on which specific bits you would keep and which bits you removed. Thanks in advance! Paul and VZ Sirajudeen
Give me some time, please. Can you remove the notice?
Redmarkviolinist (talk) Editor Review 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi David,
See Wikipedia:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking for information on why we link dates. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I pointed to that article is that it summarises the reasons for linking dates, including the fact that linked dates are formatted according to user preferences. YMMV. -- Slashme ( talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think your recent warning to this IP was a bit harsh, as it was the first message he recieved and you wrote 'Quit the vandalism please. This is your only warning' I've also noticed you have done it to another user as well, user: 122.109.234.37 . Try to calm down a bit, because what you have been saying is the equivelent of a level 4 warning. Also, you can find a list of warning templates here so you don't have to write them out longhand.
thanks, cf38 talk 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see what you mean but I think the link you gave me was no-way a level 4 warning unless the vandal had been warned before. If it was his first warning, I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}}. Also, I reccommend copying and pasting the warning templates from here to save time. If you have the Firefox browser, you could use a program called Twinkle. I use it, and I can make about 30 edits a minuite! It has an automatic system which allows you to warn, revert, tag and report in seconds! I reccommend it.
thanks, cf38 talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a description of it from it's
Page:
Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I’m mired in Christmas dinner leftovers at the computer here. :) I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Thanks, -- S.dedalus ( talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
David, would you like to join in on the Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. At present our feedback is productive; however, there has been none in attendance that seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. Join in ... I have become use to the abuse; especially if it will lead to a better article. [ [1]]. I'm sure you don't remember; but you are the one that advised me to open an account --- over a year ago---- so it is your fault that I spent way to much of my life on the article in the first place! The evidence is the top of my discussion page. Cheers!-- Random Replicator ( talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I just thought I'll let you know, I have joined your WikiProject Sports Results. I'll try to help you as much as I can and have been already contributing to swimming results from last year's Aquatic championships and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've also taken the libery to restucture your participants list and create a userbox for the project.
This user is a
participant in WikiProject Sports Results. |
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
David, I think it disappeared as a consequence of spacing and formating so time ago. The concern was over clutter if I remember. I don't recall any strong discussion one way or another on the issue. The template seems to be basically been displaced by the "portal" template. I would rather have the biology portal at the bottom and the summary in its place in that it did a good job and was never a source of criticism. I think you would get support for its return. Anything to do with format or spacing fall out of my jurisdiction / skills! I think there is an "experiment page" somewhere in which I played a little with editing it. I'll see if I can find it.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't, merely that the reference was off-topic! The section in question didn't mention prions, and appeared to be entirely about trans-generational methylation/chromatin effects.
Chees, Joe D (t) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(Sigh) I new it was going in that direction; there is plenty of blame to share here. I must rethink the use of humor; no damn body gets my jokes. Will this hurt us?-- Random Replicator ( talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This user helped promote Introduction to evolution to featured article status. |
Thanks for the help on the template-- User:Angel David ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems Filll misrepresented both of us in that case. I'm not sure I "get" the profound implication of your changes (I'll take a second and probably third look) but I doubt they could made the article any "worse" in terms of my relevance to my objection, lol. However, I'm not sure where this leaves my attempts to find a compromise with some of the editors. I'm tempted to ignore it and plough on. I don't care if my efforts are not appreciated or not accepted, but I'm not happy with denigrated. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, David. Thank you for your help moving the Research Guide to a template page and for your advice about the magic word technique. I will experiment with it to see if the Reseach Guide template can be modified so it can apply to any article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion works very well so far! I moved the original Watson example from Template:Resarch guide to Template:Research guide Watson. That way, Template:Research guide will be generic, and can be modified to a similar Template:Research guide unique name if desired. I am still working on modifications. I will let you know if there are any problems other than the reversed name form. Shannon bohle ( talk) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The research guide template is up for deletion. I thought you might want to make a comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Diff. Wonderful. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your last comment at the FAC page, politely conducted FACs on non-controversial topics are usually marked by people denoting the shortcomings/mistakes/omissions etc of the candidate articles. It's quite normal behaviour <grins>. It's down to the nominator/s to fix the issues. If the critic chooses to help out, that's a bonus, but it's certainly not expected. In fact, the nominators are usually just glad for the feedback and a chance to improve the article. (Just take a look around WP:FAC)
On this particular FAC, which is very heated, I think it's even actually a good idea for critics to restrict themselves to merely pointing out what they consider to be problems, as it'll cause an awful lot less drama. Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about creating work for you. I made a mess. Your copy edit was great. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing that I'm not trying to sabotage the article or Wikipedia. That's a first. It's probably best not to respond to this at all-but especially not at beat on the brat central dot com. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm Jordan's #1 fan k?! Like wtf srsly :(. I'm going to go edit that article within the next 1-2 days :( It needs editting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0bby flay ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument you were making was that, if the "introduction to..." article was deleted, there wouldn't be an introductory article. No-one is saying there shouldn't be an introductory article, merely that the introductory article should be the top-level article on the subject. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Britannica has 6 levels of articles. Why can we not have 2?-- Filll ( talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to defuse the situation developing on the homeopathy talk page -- DrEightyEight ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A community discussion has placed homeopathy and related articles on article probation. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.
I would note that it specificly points out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It does not specifically mention WP:AGF, but a bit of that would be useful in your behaviour on Talk:Serial dilution. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, I'm not really involved with the homeopathy business, but I couldn't help finding you a little quick to jump on Adam at Talk:Serial dilution. Perhaps, instead of bringing up past faults or slights, it would be easier and more harmonious to work towards the future and consensus? That sounds wishy-washier than I mean it to, but I hope you understand. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but Ghetto (rapper) has an article and he is no bigger in the grime scene than Black The Ripper, if anything, he is not as well known. Gonzalez8 ( talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the one wasting my time...You are the one trying to stop me, or at least prevent me from wasting my time. Does this by defenition not make you a bigger time waster? I would ask kindly that you leave me and my endevours alone, I have done nothing to you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.189.153 ( talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a bunch of extra space showing up on some pages. I realized its the bot's setting template adding it. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to support some level of censorship, and though you personally claim not to. I would suggest that many of your edits are not edits but disguised censors. Leave be what needs to be left, dont touch what needs not to be touched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The material added to Prem Rawat is an attack piece against me and Wikipedia. Coming from a tabloidesque online publication with an history of being a mouthpiece against Wikipedia, its editors, and its founder, I wonder why is still in the article and why has not been removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossie you say that "criticism is "already" present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{ criticism section}}" but i cannot find any. Are you sure it has not been removed recently? David D. (Talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree to a limited extent; keep in mind I actually AfDed Sarfati earlier (I'm still not really convinced he's notable when we get down to it. He isn't Kent Hovind or William Dembski for example). I do however think that in order to not let our own pet ideas of what should or shouldn't be included control we do need to use WP:V in general as a guideline for notability (and in fact we do per WP:N). Two comments; 1) this does bring up the standard issue that notability_wikipedia is not notability_colloquial (there was a thread back on Wikien a while back about this where people suggested other names other than "notability"). 2) I'd be inclined (and I suspect you would agree) that the sourcing difference between Sarfati and Worthington/Delaney might say more about the media, and presumably isn't saying anything that positive about the media(for that matter why do winners of say the Intel competition get less media coverage than smucks like Delaney?). However, that is essentially a POV, and we cannot let our personal POVs get in the way of what is included and what isn't. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So maybe we have a moving target? Should these two ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stefanie_Rengel and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Murphy (baseball_fan)) not be reinstated based on the current criteria? I just checked back and found that the mathematician survived ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Rubin), but how many others like that did not? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am most impressed with your horticultural connection between BobbyBirch and I, though I am not impressed with your answer. You claim to assume that BobbyBirch and I are the same person. I am sure you are very aware of the old adage, when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me, well in this case it makes an ass out of you. I am not BobbyBirch, though I am in contact with him. You say that I am not encyclopedic, I beg to differ, seeing how it is that you have no personal experience with the matters of which we speak, your opinion is not legitimate. When you take something away from something else do to a certain motive, it is called CENSORSHIP. You taking my thoughts and additions down is qualified as Vandalism and Censorship. I am unimpressed with you very clumsy attempts to make our page upright and none vandalized. I am sure somewhere in India they thank you. But not here, your just another loser sitting behind a computer screen...just let it go.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My interest in Prem Rawat is let's say low. At the time I only got involved as someone neutral, for two reasons:
For Prem Rawat & criticism, please proceed as you think useful. I'm still available for the above two aspects if you ask me directly. I don't have Prem Rawat-related articles on my watchlist, so I'm sorry I have to tell I had to read in "the press" so to say what had been happening to that article and the "criticism" counterpart since I edited them a few times over a year ago. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no, I don't know. I stopped following the article over a year ago, that was more than a month before the GA review started. I still defend the version I reverted to, despite that I know a lot has already gone into improving (successfully, also thanks to you) the version you insisted on taking as a start.
Anyhow, in short:
Maybe Talk:Prem Rawat/Temp (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses point 6 for what I mean), to get things sorted out in laboratory stage. Although I haven't thought this through yet, just offering a thought I was thinking when I read your message - needs some thinking whether that would work here: sometimes that technique rather complicates than simplifies things. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
AC did a mass deletion of everything on the page and then put some stuff back. Could you put everything that he deleted back? I am happy to archive anything with his name on it. Abridged talk 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, David. Breaks have advantages, and I now expanded an article on my childhood memories. I think I'll stay away from WT:RD for a while though, not all childhood memories are equally digestible. Best wishes. --- Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that borderline cases are precisely the ones we need to pay attention to and think hard about. Also, as per User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP I think that for BLP-penumbra deletions we really should pay attention to the community consensus. (That essay gives other reasons why I strongly prefer process in such situations). I also strongly think that we need to be objective about this sort of thing because we otherwise interject our own POV and cultural attitudes about what is notable. The fact that I'd rather not have the media pay any attention to Delaney is not relevant. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. I was trying to say "Shut up" and be civil, and a deliberate attempt at being funny seemed the way to go. Oh, well. But the French are indeed annoying, so it's no wonder you didn't know what to make of it all. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't threaten me with blocking for expressing my opinion, and for making my case against an editor who has been spewing anti-semitic bile all over Wikipedia and has been Jew baiting and attacking me incessantly. I do not appreciate such intimidation tactics. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, would you be interested? - jc37 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya, David. Long time no see! – Clockwork Soul 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I responded to you over at Boodles' place, thanks for presenting a valid alternative hypothesis. WNDL42 ( talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the vandalism warning [2] you left for KIMIMARU4242 ( talk · contribs), please remember to subst the warning templates and also to sign your messages. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi David. Here's (some of) the history. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I do intend to answer this shortly; I'm a bit busy right now but will likely reply later tonight. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The longer response I promised you (I'm not sure it is as organized as it should be):
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Excellent work on Aldershot SuzanneKn ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
I've been very impressed with your patience with contributors after reading the talk page for Aldershot. Here's a barnstar. I hope you are keeping up the good work. I also wonder if you think something could be done with the sports section which has so many bold headings & spam links. I'm rather hesitant to edit given some of the contents of the talk page. SuzanneKn ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for working on this recently improved article. Do you edit law articles ofteN? JeanLatore ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————
Welcome. |
Just came to tell you I replied to your question. Reply
Hey this is Bobby Birch, and Ive already spoken with "Inspector 34" or whatever he calls himself, and please stop deleting my material! I am serious. Just stop. Its an article on an Alaskan school! Give me a break, it means nothing to you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bobbybirch (
talk •
contribs)
02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Response here
S TOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP changing my page fool! leave the grace page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.152.26 ( talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-- 117.193.98.33 ( talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)== Article on Fubra ==
Hi David,
Regarding this article that you have moved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmaunders/Fubra
I created the Fubra Limited article as I noticed there were some other existing pages on wikipedia about sites we (Fubra) own, and so I thought it would make sense to create a page about our company and link these articles in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Price_Crash
I thought it would be useful to readers to be able to follow the link where our name was mentioned to get some background information on us.
I have read the relevant wikipedia policies but I still think the creation of a page on Fubra by me is justified.
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable.
I am happy to go through the article and make sure that any Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has a reliable source, as per the Wikipedia policies.
Sources
Hi David, I have added in some references. Could you have a look over what I have done so far and offer your opinion on which specific bits you would keep and which bits you removed. Thanks in advance! Paul and VZ Sirajudeen
Give me some time, please. Can you remove the notice?
Redmarkviolinist (talk) Editor Review 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi David,
See Wikipedia:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking for information on why we link dates. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I pointed to that article is that it summarises the reasons for linking dates, including the fact that linked dates are formatted according to user preferences. YMMV. -- Slashme ( talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think your recent warning to this IP was a bit harsh, as it was the first message he recieved and you wrote 'Quit the vandalism please. This is your only warning' I've also noticed you have done it to another user as well, user: 122.109.234.37 . Try to calm down a bit, because what you have been saying is the equivelent of a level 4 warning. Also, you can find a list of warning templates here so you don't have to write them out longhand.
thanks, cf38 talk 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see what you mean but I think the link you gave me was no-way a level 4 warning unless the vandal had been warned before. If it was his first warning, I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}}. Also, I reccommend copying and pasting the warning templates from here to save time. If you have the Firefox browser, you could use a program called Twinkle. I use it, and I can make about 30 edits a minuite! It has an automatic system which allows you to warn, revert, tag and report in seconds! I reccommend it.
thanks, cf38 talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a description of it from it's
Page:
Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I’m mired in Christmas dinner leftovers at the computer here. :) I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Thanks, -- S.dedalus ( talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
David, would you like to join in on the Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. At present our feedback is productive; however, there has been none in attendance that seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. Join in ... I have become use to the abuse; especially if it will lead to a better article. [ [1]]. I'm sure you don't remember; but you are the one that advised me to open an account --- over a year ago---- so it is your fault that I spent way to much of my life on the article in the first place! The evidence is the top of my discussion page. Cheers!-- Random Replicator ( talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I just thought I'll let you know, I have joined your WikiProject Sports Results. I'll try to help you as much as I can and have been already contributing to swimming results from last year's Aquatic championships and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've also taken the libery to restucture your participants list and create a userbox for the project.
This user is a
participant in WikiProject Sports Results. |
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
David, I think it disappeared as a consequence of spacing and formating so time ago. The concern was over clutter if I remember. I don't recall any strong discussion one way or another on the issue. The template seems to be basically been displaced by the "portal" template. I would rather have the biology portal at the bottom and the summary in its place in that it did a good job and was never a source of criticism. I think you would get support for its return. Anything to do with format or spacing fall out of my jurisdiction / skills! I think there is an "experiment page" somewhere in which I played a little with editing it. I'll see if I can find it.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't, merely that the reference was off-topic! The section in question didn't mention prions, and appeared to be entirely about trans-generational methylation/chromatin effects.
Chees, Joe D (t) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(Sigh) I new it was going in that direction; there is plenty of blame to share here. I must rethink the use of humor; no damn body gets my jokes. Will this hurt us?-- Random Replicator ( talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This user helped promote Introduction to evolution to featured article status. |
Thanks for the help on the template-- User:Angel David ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems Filll misrepresented both of us in that case. I'm not sure I "get" the profound implication of your changes (I'll take a second and probably third look) but I doubt they could made the article any "worse" in terms of my relevance to my objection, lol. However, I'm not sure where this leaves my attempts to find a compromise with some of the editors. I'm tempted to ignore it and plough on. I don't care if my efforts are not appreciated or not accepted, but I'm not happy with denigrated. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, David. Thank you for your help moving the Research Guide to a template page and for your advice about the magic word technique. I will experiment with it to see if the Reseach Guide template can be modified so it can apply to any article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion works very well so far! I moved the original Watson example from Template:Resarch guide to Template:Research guide Watson. That way, Template:Research guide will be generic, and can be modified to a similar Template:Research guide unique name if desired. I am still working on modifications. I will let you know if there are any problems other than the reversed name form. Shannon bohle ( talk) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The research guide template is up for deletion. I thought you might want to make a comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Diff. Wonderful. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your last comment at the FAC page, politely conducted FACs on non-controversial topics are usually marked by people denoting the shortcomings/mistakes/omissions etc of the candidate articles. It's quite normal behaviour <grins>. It's down to the nominator/s to fix the issues. If the critic chooses to help out, that's a bonus, but it's certainly not expected. In fact, the nominators are usually just glad for the feedback and a chance to improve the article. (Just take a look around WP:FAC)
On this particular FAC, which is very heated, I think it's even actually a good idea for critics to restrict themselves to merely pointing out what they consider to be problems, as it'll cause an awful lot less drama. Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about creating work for you. I made a mess. Your copy edit was great. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing that I'm not trying to sabotage the article or Wikipedia. That's a first. It's probably best not to respond to this at all-but especially not at beat on the brat central dot com. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm Jordan's #1 fan k?! Like wtf srsly :(. I'm going to go edit that article within the next 1-2 days :( It needs editting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0bby flay ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument you were making was that, if the "introduction to..." article was deleted, there wouldn't be an introductory article. No-one is saying there shouldn't be an introductory article, merely that the introductory article should be the top-level article on the subject. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Britannica has 6 levels of articles. Why can we not have 2?-- Filll ( talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to defuse the situation developing on the homeopathy talk page -- DrEightyEight ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A community discussion has placed homeopathy and related articles on article probation. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.
I would note that it specificly points out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It does not specifically mention WP:AGF, but a bit of that would be useful in your behaviour on Talk:Serial dilution. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, I'm not really involved with the homeopathy business, but I couldn't help finding you a little quick to jump on Adam at Talk:Serial dilution. Perhaps, instead of bringing up past faults or slights, it would be easier and more harmonious to work towards the future and consensus? That sounds wishy-washier than I mean it to, but I hope you understand. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but Ghetto (rapper) has an article and he is no bigger in the grime scene than Black The Ripper, if anything, he is not as well known. Gonzalez8 ( talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the one wasting my time...You are the one trying to stop me, or at least prevent me from wasting my time. Does this by defenition not make you a bigger time waster? I would ask kindly that you leave me and my endevours alone, I have done nothing to you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.189.153 ( talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a bunch of extra space showing up on some pages. I realized its the bot's setting template adding it. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to support some level of censorship, and though you personally claim not to. I would suggest that many of your edits are not edits but disguised censors. Leave be what needs to be left, dont touch what needs not to be touched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The material added to Prem Rawat is an attack piece against me and Wikipedia. Coming from a tabloidesque online publication with an history of being a mouthpiece against Wikipedia, its editors, and its founder, I wonder why is still in the article and why has not been removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossie you say that "criticism is "already" present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{ criticism section}}" but i cannot find any. Are you sure it has not been removed recently? David D. (Talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree to a limited extent; keep in mind I actually AfDed Sarfati earlier (I'm still not really convinced he's notable when we get down to it. He isn't Kent Hovind or William Dembski for example). I do however think that in order to not let our own pet ideas of what should or shouldn't be included control we do need to use WP:V in general as a guideline for notability (and in fact we do per WP:N). Two comments; 1) this does bring up the standard issue that notability_wikipedia is not notability_colloquial (there was a thread back on Wikien a while back about this where people suggested other names other than "notability"). 2) I'd be inclined (and I suspect you would agree) that the sourcing difference between Sarfati and Worthington/Delaney might say more about the media, and presumably isn't saying anything that positive about the media(for that matter why do winners of say the Intel competition get less media coverage than smucks like Delaney?). However, that is essentially a POV, and we cannot let our personal POVs get in the way of what is included and what isn't. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So maybe we have a moving target? Should these two ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stefanie_Rengel and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Murphy (baseball_fan)) not be reinstated based on the current criteria? I just checked back and found that the mathematician survived ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Rubin), but how many others like that did not? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am most impressed with your horticultural connection between BobbyBirch and I, though I am not impressed with your answer. You claim to assume that BobbyBirch and I are the same person. I am sure you are very aware of the old adage, when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me, well in this case it makes an ass out of you. I am not BobbyBirch, though I am in contact with him. You say that I am not encyclopedic, I beg to differ, seeing how it is that you have no personal experience with the matters of which we speak, your opinion is not legitimate. When you take something away from something else do to a certain motive, it is called CENSORSHIP. You taking my thoughts and additions down is qualified as Vandalism and Censorship. I am unimpressed with you very clumsy attempts to make our page upright and none vandalized. I am sure somewhere in India they thank you. But not here, your just another loser sitting behind a computer screen...just let it go.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyOak ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My interest in Prem Rawat is let's say low. At the time I only got involved as someone neutral, for two reasons:
For Prem Rawat & criticism, please proceed as you think useful. I'm still available for the above two aspects if you ask me directly. I don't have Prem Rawat-related articles on my watchlist, so I'm sorry I have to tell I had to read in "the press" so to say what had been happening to that article and the "criticism" counterpart since I edited them a few times over a year ago. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no, I don't know. I stopped following the article over a year ago, that was more than a month before the GA review started. I still defend the version I reverted to, despite that I know a lot has already gone into improving (successfully, also thanks to you) the version you insisted on taking as a start.
Anyhow, in short:
Maybe Talk:Prem Rawat/Temp (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses point 6 for what I mean), to get things sorted out in laboratory stage. Although I haven't thought this through yet, just offering a thought I was thinking when I read your message - needs some thinking whether that would work here: sometimes that technique rather complicates than simplifies things. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
AC did a mass deletion of everything on the page and then put some stuff back. Could you put everything that he deleted back? I am happy to archive anything with his name on it. Abridged talk 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, David. Breaks have advantages, and I now expanded an article on my childhood memories. I think I'll stay away from WT:RD for a while though, not all childhood memories are equally digestible. Best wishes. --- Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that borderline cases are precisely the ones we need to pay attention to and think hard about. Also, as per User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP I think that for BLP-penumbra deletions we really should pay attention to the community consensus. (That essay gives other reasons why I strongly prefer process in such situations). I also strongly think that we need to be objective about this sort of thing because we otherwise interject our own POV and cultural attitudes about what is notable. The fact that I'd rather not have the media pay any attention to Delaney is not relevant. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. I was trying to say "Shut up" and be civil, and a deliberate attempt at being funny seemed the way to go. Oh, well. But the French are indeed annoying, so it's no wonder you didn't know what to make of it all. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't threaten me with blocking for expressing my opinion, and for making my case against an editor who has been spewing anti-semitic bile all over Wikipedia and has been Jew baiting and attacking me incessantly. I do not appreciate such intimidation tactics. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, would you be interested? - jc37 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya, David. Long time no see! – Clockwork Soul 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I responded to you over at Boodles' place, thanks for presenting a valid alternative hypothesis. WNDL42 ( talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the vandalism warning [2] you left for KIMIMARU4242 ( talk · contribs), please remember to subst the warning templates and also to sign your messages. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi David. Here's (some of) the history. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I do intend to answer this shortly; I'm a bit busy right now but will likely reply later tonight. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The longer response I promised you (I'm not sure it is as organized as it should be):
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Excellent work on Aldershot SuzanneKn ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
I've been very impressed with your patience with contributors after reading the talk page for Aldershot. Here's a barnstar. I hope you are keeping up the good work. I also wonder if you think something could be done with the sports section which has so many bold headings & spam links. I'm rather hesitant to edit given some of the contents of the talk page. SuzanneKn ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for working on this recently improved article. Do you edit law articles ofteN? JeanLatore ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)