User talk:Davidwr

To leave me a message, click on the + tab at the top of the page. Be sure to add ~~~~ to your message so I know who you are.

References at Republic of Texas

Hi David, I think we should use inline citations at Republic of Texas, using the ref tags. It makes it easier to see what sources say what --AW 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Credentials debate

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Credentials are useless#I hold a Ph.D..2C you should read my c.v.. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidwr

Thank you, Davidwr. I see you are relatively new here. In that case, I thank you for discussing the matter we have been in such a calm, cool, logical manner. It is much appreciated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On a "Further reading" section in the Tuskegee Airmen

Daidwr, my concern over even having a "further reading section at all" is that if the article is based on research, the relevant sources should already have been part of the references. As an academic librarian, I find that there has been a confusing departure in bibliographic referencing protocols in the entire Wikipedia format.

If you are citing reference sources, these are normally listed as a footnote or endnote. Since there is no provision for footnoting, then the endnote is the only option. Yet the Wikipedia guidelines do not refer to an endnote, rather editors have incorporated a "notes" section after the main body of text. Then on top of the notes section is another section called "references" which would normally be called a "bibliography" in research and academic writing which Wikipedia strives to emulate. There is a provision for separate notes and references but most Wikipedia editors follow a format that combines the two lists, which is fine since the notes and referenced sources can be seen in relation to each other in a "tight" format.

Now on top of all of this is the "Further reading" (or viewing, or listening, etc.) section which allows editors to provide a completely new listing of sources. First, when there is no provision for individual research or "first-hand" commentary, why is there a listing of personal favourites or "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers?" If these sources were so important, why were they not used for research in the first place?

Then to cap off the whole "sloppy mess" is the over-arching guidelines that state: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research." Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.

• Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
• Wikipedia has an established code of conduct and respect.

That Davidwr, is why I usually do not have a "Further reading" section in my edits. It is confusing enough to have a "references" page, why introduce more references? Now don't get me started on the mess over using an APA bibliographic style guide over the usual MLA guide and then those %4#2*& "templates." That sums up my concerns over the bibliographical sourcing that is recommended by Wikipedia. IMHO Bzuk 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I did some digging and found Wikipedia:Citing_sources which proved very helpful. Davidwr 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you find article?

How did you find my newly created article on the Astronaut Hall of Fame? I was surprised that nobody wrote such an article. I was also surprised on how you found it. Is there a list of new articles? I'm a new user so I don't know all the ins and outs.Feddhicks 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the new inductees to the new category I'm creating. I wanted to tie it in with the existing page. Davidwr 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS encryption key controversy

about your edits to AACS encryption key controversy. 1: isn't this information in the article already ? 2: Does it really need to be called "in popular culture" ???? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#New_section: Impact on popular culture Davidwr 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig revert

No problem.  :) It was an accident, actually- meant to revert something else but my laptop pointer slipped. Diagonalfish 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Discussion of 09f9 controversy, starting May 6, 2007

Image:Presa de decissions.png

It is an empty description page that was mistakenly created for a Commons-hosted image. The actual image won't be deleted. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my misunderstanding. davidwr ^09f9 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Glenn — I believe you are mistaken

I believe you are citing the wrong editor in your note on my talk page and on the John Glenn talk page. The edit that I made is here — where I reverted vandalism (calling John Glenn "Can't Read"). The edit following mine [2], by 71.244.140.70, where it was changed to "magnetic ***" in the body of the article is probably the one you are referring to. Your subsequent reversion was back to mine.

I would appeciate it if you would correct this error (attributing the reversion to me) both on the John Glenn talk page and on my talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. You have my sincerest apologies. davidwr ^09f9 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the correction. On another note, I noticed that your colorful signature does not contain an internal link to your user page nor your user talk page. (See WP:Signature#Internal_links). In the standard signature, rendered by ~~~~ , a link to one's userpage is added. This is helpful if an editor wants to respond to you. When I wanted to respond to your message on my talk page, it required that I go to my page history to link back to you. It would be helpful if you would add such to your signature. It wouldn't prevent a colorful signature. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Astronaut Hall of Fame help. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one looking at it!Feddhicks 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the Supreme Court stub concept on its talk page

If you are discussing my bot proposal of May 19, please discuss it on its talk page, User_talk:Davidwr/sandbox_SupremeCourt. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 20:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Given the anon user's string of contributions adding the same external link to multiple articles, I considered the addition of the link to be spam. If, after examining the information contained at the website, you find it would be a useful, unique resource, feel free to add it back to the SCOTUS project's page. · jersyko talk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I missed the fact that it was a pay site. That plus anonymity/lack of accountability plus mass seeding = spam even if it is useful. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Can you keep an eye on Dixie High School (Utah)?

Dixie High School (Utah) has been the subject of a lot of vandalism and "juvenile" edits lately. It would be great if an actual student watched the page and reverted the vandalism. davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aporras22"

--Aporras22 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I am a current student at Dixie High I have put this page on my watchlist and I have frequently been fixing the vandalism that has been going on. I try to go on about once every one to two weeks to make sure nothing has been vandalized but ever since I've started watching it nothing has seemed to change.

Thanks for the TexShare thanks!

Hello David. Thanks for your interest in the TexShare library consortium and for your initial stem article. We appreciate it. By the way, are you the author of the Catalogablog site? The blog is quite popular among librarians. Mikea2 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome. No, I am not the author of that site. davidwr (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried and failed to find a clearly-free-use image of the poppy quarter. If you or anyone else finds one please replace my image. davidwr (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mooted, another image is available on the commons.

Young Junior High School link

Even though it has no incoming links, I think it's plausible that someone might type this in looking for this school. If you feel strongly about it, list the redirect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several Young Junior High schools in the USA, so the odds are in fact that it would cause harm in that respect. However, it is over a year old and might break external links. davidwr (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahia

Thank you, I have corrected it yet! Opinoso 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Prodding Paul Davidoff

Nope, no objections. As I recall the anon requester, back when Wikipedia:Articles for creation was new, promised to expand the article once it was created, but obviously didn't. I don't know anything more about it than what's there; good luck on your research, but if you don't think it belongs here, so be it. Thank you very much for the polite note, however; a little thoughtfulness goes a long way.  :) — Catherine\^talk 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Discussion about Sub-Saharan Africa, starting 16 July 2007

initial comments by Henriettaz, around 11:02 16 July 2007 The source that is used to rewrite Black Africa's history, is original. The editors use this original source to redefine the term sub-saharan. In the current version, it is defined as solely a geographic label, which is inaccurate. Sub-saharan Africa is not only geographic, as the Sahara is not inhabited and uninhabitable, but also, and most importantly, racial, cultural and historical. The fact that the editors repeatedly deleted the addition of an anti-afrocentric critique is significant. Why wikipedia has not yet noticed the "novelty" of this interpretation is shocking, and possibly also due to the fact that this same original source is used in all related articles, which redirect to it and vice versa. According to wikipedia, original research is : "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a POSITION — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "NOVEL narrative or historical interpretation." The article attempts to efface sub-saharan africa's sub-saharaness. It also arrogantly claims that the tern is now "obsolete" and considered pejorative. This is untrue. The term is not obsolete, in fact, it is used by the whole world and all of academia. It is, furthermore, not considered pejorative, except by this "band" of eccentrics, who equate blacksness with inferiority. The article attempts to blur definitions, and makes absurd claims such as,"Africa as a whole was commonly known as "the Dark continent", a term that was usually intended to refer to the Sub-Saharan region. This was partly due to the skin color of its inhabitants." Africa was not commonly known as the dark continent. Sub-saharan Africa, or Black Africa, was known as the dark continent. In fact, North Africa is known as L'afrique Blanche in French, which means White Africa, as the region is largely francophone, and the country that is most familiar with the region is France. It goes on to state that "Further, they are misleading, as dark-skinned Africans are indigenous to much of North Africa, as well." this, again, is inaccurate. Indigenous North Africans are in fact of Eurasian stock, and though Mediterranean peoples and Arabs are known to be tanned or, funnily enough "mediterranean" as in olive-toned, they are clearly quite distinguishable from Sub-saharan or Black Africans. The confusion arises from the inaccurate inclusion of Sudan and Mauritania (not ancient mauritanius) to North Africa, again on wikipedia, two sub-saharan countries. In fact, the very name Sudanese is an Arabic one meaning the black people in Arabic. Arabs themselves named the people of this region, though the distinction was in no way pejorative. Wikipedians keep using UN maps that were devised for "statistical purposes" by the UN to substantiate their inaccuracies. Sadly, hitherto, these wikipedians (and they are always the same when it comes to this region) have overlooked the UN's own caveat that these maps were devised solely for "statistical purposes for carrying our statistical analysis" and should therefore not be used in the study of non-statistical research, as the UN itself warns, "It does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." Yet, these maps are being used to define and redraw maps. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:02, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)] Addendum: I should also mention that I couldn't care less anymore. I have tried to edit these articles for the past 3 weeks, was inflamed, harrassed, provoked, angered. As a newbie, I reacted rather stupidly and naively as I had no idea as to how one is expected to behave. Now, of course, I know about all the rules etc. However, my experience has been that content matters very little, and that articles are veritably hijacked, owned etc. by certain people. After reading the nonsense about North Africa and the Arab world, I simply do not believe that this project makes much sense. The rules are simply strange and sources are ignored. My problem with the sub-saharan article is not at all complex yet no one wants to look into the sources. I simply do not care, but I think it is unfair that certain people impose their "opinions" on the world through the manipulation of the system. So, I'm not at all vested in this, I just thought I'd point out the obvious, though if you are like the others, you will probably OVERLOOK the main problem: content/flimsy, bizarre source. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:22, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)] More comments by various editors between 12:51 and 17:37 16 July 2007 Davidwr, could you please take a look at these: User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely, Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83, WP:ANI#New_sock_of_User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. Henriettaz is yet another sock of an abusive, disruptive and blocked user. --Ezeu 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [the above was edited significantly on 17:37, 16 July 2007 Ezeu (Talk | contribs), after many of the replies below.] Davidwr, please review a history of Ezeu's contributions before judging the user Mariam83. A good place to start would be the dispute itself and how it started initially. Ezeu, as an admin, did not behave as an admin at first, and sided with the user Halaqah, who used a sockpuppet "Rastarule" during the dispute, to gang up, with Ezeu, against Mariam83. User Halaqah has a dictatorial grip over many articles with the aid of administrators like Ezeu. User Halaqa was reported by another administrator [3] for his questionable conduct during the dispute. I wonder WHY ANOTHER administrator noticed this behavior and not the one that sided with him, Ezeu, who behaved like an editor rather than an administrator the entire time. A perfect example of Ezeu's siding is evident if one carefully reads the archive. Under the section titled "removed POV ranting", he very clearly sides with Halaqah and his sockpuppet Rastarule, and engages in inflamming. He also neglects to focus on the source, which is what began the dispute in the first place. Ezeu has removed many tags, that should not have been removed, simply our of vengeance. I repeatedly asked all involved not to personalize the topics, but they did so rather maliciously, with the hope of overshadowing the main problem: content, source. Again, I do not really care anymore because clearly this project is flawed, sadly because of users who abuse its editing system to replace facts with propaganda. Ezeu is once again, attempting to detract from the main problem: content, by focusing on witiquette, which he himself lacks. He has been protecting pages, reverting blindly etc., and behaving more like a vindictive editor than an administrator, which is why I was shocked to learn that he was one. The removal of tags is unacceptable, and the pretension that they are not deserved is absurd. [unsigned comment made 14:11, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)] The manipulation of language is malicious. Ezeu again displays his manipulative ways, which is what caused all this noise in the first place. Note that he tries to detract from the main issue, and interjects with sockpuppet evidence (much of it untrue) in an attempt to discredit a user. If the archives are perused, it will quickly surface that Mariam83 was intially not a disruptor and not abusive, but merely amended some grossly inaccurate articles. It is in fact abusive for the writers of this propaganda to impose their lies on the public. Initially, you engaged in the brouhaha, and even corroborated Halaqah's distortion. Again, I couldn't care less about what happens here anymore as it is clearly a circus, and wikipedia is obviously not an "encyclopedia" that "anyone" can edit. It is, in fact, controlled by a cadre of editors/administrators who manipulate the system to institutionalize falsities and to monopolize knowledge. All I initially tried to do was correct LIES. The war that ensued, which Ezeu & co. (with years of experience, admin tools& familiarity with the system) waged, is not only corrupt and SAD, but completely inimical to the yielding of anything even remotely balanced or truthful. [unsigned comment made 14:35, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)] Another very active corrupt administrator is FayssalF. He is working very hard to help established POV gangs maintain control over their articles. His favorite editors are Collounsbury, Bouha/Drmaik, and anyone who agrees with them: [[4]]are Cohexer and 66.141.23.186. Could you revert and semi-ptotect the pages (Tunisia, Africa Province among others? Thanks Bouha 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) the following 4 paragraphs is one long edit -(Same link as above) Thanks for the protect Fun stuff those odd little attacks. collounsbury 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC). -Faysal Mate Can you help out on the Maghrebine pages and this bizarre edit war set off by Mariam83? As I noted in comments, I don't even necessarily disagree with some (even a good many) of her edits, but the wholesale vandalistic editing with refusal to discuss at all is bloody stunning. Also rather disturbing is the editing on the African connexion angle, mate, as well as her comments on pages re 3bid, quite racialistic. Best collounsbury 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC). I'll do my best asap. No worries. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ~Unfortunately, what FayssalF did was protect the page automatically, thus sparking off a battle of sorts. He admitted to NOT reading content or even argument, and hence, blindly obliged his "mate." He has now obliged Bouha, protected his articles, as though his FLAWED knowledge were final, as well as protected Maghreb, Berber, North Africa etc. Sadly, Collounsbury lied, as usual[[5]]. If anything, MAriam83 discussed things way too much, and repeatedly referenced claims with authoritative sources: britannica, oxford, UN, Columbia, Stanford, not some "fringe" work. [unsigned comment made 15:07, 16 July 2007 71.156.120.219 (Talk)] My reply of 00:17 17 July 2007 STOP all of you. I am not here to evaluate contributors. I'll evaluate contributions on their merits. Specifically, how much the contributions mesh with academic viewpoints and with generally accepted viewpoints on the subject matter. I will discuss this more on the article talk page. I may be fairly new at Wikipedia, but this isn't my first time walking into the middle of a dispute that's on the verge of degenerating into a chorus of "I'm right because my opponent is a loser." If anyone continues to disparage their opponent, if they are lucky I will ignore them. If they aren't, I'll count it against them. This issue is first and foremost a content dispute. For those of you who have engaged in block-eligible behavior whether or not you have ever been blocked or even warned - and you should know who you are - stop. For those of you who haven't yet done so, don't start. Editors banned or blocked from that page but who are allowed to post here: I will be asking a series of questions on the article talk page. Since you can't answer there, you may answer them on my user talk page if you like. The more concise and less opinionated your answer the more likely I'll give it weight. This does not apply to editors blocked or banned from my user talk page or from all of Wikipedia. Oh, one more thing: Please sign your posts, it saves me a lot of time. How hard is it to put ~~~~? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate it. :) --GrooveDog (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Five-A Barnstar Template

Reply to [6]

I uploaded the higher-res version as requested. Good thinking! As a note, I'm perfectly fine with the license you chose - it's your right to choose whatever as long as it's compatible with the original. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That's funny. Ok, I'll keep an eye on that. Just so you know, I've got a higher resolution version of your AFC barnstar if you want it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:71.126.156.74

Can you make this page, then?

Re: Re: User_talk:71.126.156.74

I'm not a new Wikipedian..this is just my IP. Who am I? HAR HAR. No, seriously, though. Just put up a disambiguation page.

AFC Drive Rewards

Hey there.

Just to keep in mind, we are NOT going to give out the awards until the drive ends. This will make it much easier for me to keep track of at the end. I noticed that you had "awarded" them to Hersfold and Counterpart0. Thanks for your help, but don't give out the awards quite yet. GrooveDog (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!

First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.

Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.

Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.

And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.

Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog.

Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ^(Owner)

AFC Barnstar

Just noticed you're well over the 100 reviewed limit, so here is your barnstar. Many congratulations. Theone00 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:AFC Backlog

Thanks for reminding me. I've actually made a few; I just forgot to update the count. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that! (about the 1,000 artical). Cheers for telling me. 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor

Greetings,

I'm e-mailing you to let you know that I plan to try again with my article., Most ancient common ancestor. I realize that ideas such as the Earth is round often meet with popular resistance, but ultimately prove correct. It took Barbara McClintock some 30 years before experts realized that she was right. I find it grossly unfair that the article was deleted before I had a chance to comment on it. Perhaps more disturbing, however, is that those who voted for deletion did so after the article was gutted by Fred Hsu, who nominated it for deletion.

Let me say that there was also a misunderstanding. I realize that if we are talking intra-speciation, then our most ancient common ancestor might be a 'sponge.' But I was talking within-species. The idea is that, if humans evolved from multiple origins (as hypothesized in the multiregional hypothesis) and these later populations intermixed, then there would come a point in time when a first (or most ancient) common ancestor would emerge. Even if the idea is not totally right, to think that a single chimp-ancestor mutated into a 'human' in a single step is complete and utter bunk.Ryoung122 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Davidwr, before you reply, please see what Ryoung122 wrote on my talk page. I hope he fixed the screwed-up text blocks he left. Fred Hsu 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122, I strongly recommend you find a related article and expand it. Be sure cite heavily and avoid anything that sounds like original research, or it's likely to be tagged {{fact}} then reverted. If you write a similar article with the same topic, you will likely lose any resulting AFD and find the name salted or the page replaced with a protected redirect to prevent recreation. If you want a deletion review, you can request one. Deletion reviews are typically granted if there is a procedural issue. If you were away from Wikipedia during most of the AFD period, that might qualify. If you emailed me, the mail has not yet arrived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded by what Ryoung122 is producing. I wish I could watch his 'contributions' page. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. I can't believe he quoted what I just wrote on my talk page as supporting evidence for his now-deleted article. I am speechless. Fred Hsu 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122's contributions page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. I mean: put that contributions page in my watch list... Fred Hsu 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the argument here...I was away and did not have a chance to explain or argue my position; therefore I am requesting a 'deletion review'...either a restoration or a re-vote.Ryoung122 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 2

I have started MORE THAN 54 articles and so far, only ONE has been deleted. I suppose that willow oak was a much less controversial topic than human origins, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_oak

I'm glad to see that Fred Hsu is dumbfounded, because people like that think they know everything, just like Saul thought persecuting Christians was the right thing to do. Later, he changed his mind. Perhaps Mr. Hsu needs to read Paul Baltes's work on wisdom. Intelligence isn't everything; being open-minded and able to consider other points of view are important. That doesn't mean that we should corrupt things the way that Time Magazine sells out to religion at Christmas time. That does mean that we don't know as much about the human genome or evolution or speciation as we think we know. The Linnean system of nomenclature has recently strained as it became increasingly apparent that it is, at best, an artificial model which imperfectly fits the reality of biology. For a more real assessment, I suggest reading this:

http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/

Have a good day.Ryoung122 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw man, anyone? Fred Hsu 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 3

This is not an archive. The discussion is active. This discussion is collapsed due to sheer length.

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. Errabee 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

LOZ: OOT has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration. Thank you. Fred Hsu 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC News

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are nine days away from the end of the drive, and it's been fantastic! Many, many, many days of backlog have been tackled, and over 1500 articles reviewed!

To start off, a HUGE THANKS to everyone who helped out with the coordination of the drive, and actually fighting the backlog in the drive itself. Everyone's done a great job helping out, no matter how many articles you've reviewed/

Remember to update your running total, on the drive page. This is the ONLY way that I will be able to give out awards appropriately.

Lastly, I will be giving out awards on August 16th. Anyone who could help me, that would be fantastic. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like to volunteer.

Great job, everyone! This Drive has been fantastic, and I'm sure that some members of the Project have definitely made friends by collaborating on the talk pages. Thanks,
GrooveDog.

Regarding Pennsylvania State Senate and House pages

Davidwr you left me a message about creating pages for the Pennsylvania State Senate and House Districts, saying that I should register before createing them. I can't do this for various reasons, can't I submit my articles through the articles for creation page like I did for the previous ones. And if the 55th and 64th House District pages aren't created yet by the days end I will let you know.

Thank You.

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)

Notability of Postmodern African American Homosexuals

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 {{hangon}} 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#Awards 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)

WikiProject Saskatchewan

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan		WikiProject Saskatchewan Barnstar
		WikiProject Saskatchewan barnstars are the official award for outstanding, extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to WikiProject Saskatchewan Or they can be awarded by anyone, to anyone who has showed significant efforts to improve WikiProject Saskatchewan. Thank you for creating Ebenezer, Saskatchewan from the articles for creation list! SriMesh | talk 03:57, 14 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, JetLover ^(talk) 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it just ended. I think it was great! We got 4600 articles reviewed! Cheers, JetLover ^(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. Hersfold ^(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)

AFC Drive Award

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		You accumulated 695 total articles reviewed in the last month! Great job, and thanks for your help! I will DEFINITELY be planning another drive sometime in the future, so keep posted and keep reviewing! GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki Award
		You had the MOST articles reviewed during the drive, so I hereby award you the golden wiki award! Thanks tons for your help during the drive, it was much appreciated! GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION reply

Shoot. I don't read help desk stuff very much (which I should, no sarcasm). If someone hasn't already, I'll go remove it.

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 70.55.160.107 (talk) 21:49, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ( ~~~~ ) 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

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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 {{hangon}} 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)

2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament

I did not submit the actual blogs. Someone else put them in and I referenced them. NoseNuggets (talk) 7:30 PM US EDT Mar 23 2008.

I found a new reference for the radio announcers from a Westwood One press release for the record. I guess that's where they got the information on the blog as that is where many of them get them. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:58 AM US EDT Mar 24 2008.

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#G7. PeterSymonds | talk 07:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the remaining two were done by User:Danbarnesdavies, 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)

Image copyright problem with Image:100kgCanadianGoldOnPedestal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:100kgCanadianGoldOnPedestal.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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)

Strom Botnet article change 213.196.220.153 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Davidwr!

Thanks for the tips, how to use Wiki more efficiently and for your time and input! Never knew about possibility to discuss online, using Wiki generally for education. I think its great!

About the change, I changed "Later provocative subjects included, Chinese missile shot down USA aircraft" to ".. Russian aircraft/satellite." in Storm Botnet Storm botnet article, because I was cross-reading on the origins of zombiebots and in the original article on Storm Worm, which data is used at Storm botnet, the phrase is stated as: "Chinese/Russian missile shot down Chinese/Russian satellite/aircraft".

Following the link(9)@Storm Worm, I found this: "The first several spam blasts of the Trojan -- which was named "Peacomm" by Symantec (NSDQ: SYMC) -- came with current event subject heads, including ones claiming to include video of a Chinese missile attack or proof that Saddam Hussein lives, and bore attached files such as "video.exe."

So, i guess, the phrase "Chinese/Russian missile shot down Chinese/Russian satellite/aircraft" should be modified into "Chinese missile shot down USA aircraft" in Storm Worm article. Just for means of historical accuracy.

Thanks for your input! -unsigned comment by 18:51, 18 April 2008 213.196.220.153 (Talk)

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 Wikipedia:Articles for creation has prepared you to evaluate when articles should be deleted. Please read up on the Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

• 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.

Taprootaudio 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)