User talk:DavidWBrooks/2006 archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stand-alone dates giving context?

Hi, David: I'm new to Wikipedia. Can you educated me on stand-alone dates, re: your recent Telegraph page edit? I agree 2005 makes little sense, but as I read the style guidelines (I just went over them) if the date link gives context, it makes sense. I would say 1869 or 1832 would be good candidates for links, and fall into that category. What do you say? Thanks! - Stephen Nhprman 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. (and I'm replying here to your post on my page, as you did - not sure of the ettiquite) I agree that all the underlining can be visually annoying, and also that 1995 linked is kind of a useless. But 1832 linked, as it was in your paper's Wiki article, would give the article historical context - as in, "What was happening then in society that might have led to a weekly paper there". It was your paper's article I edited, changing a typo "neary" to "nearby." At the same time, I also Wiki'd 2005, which you removed, correctly, I see now. What you say makes sense. But you also removed 1869 and 1832, hence my question above. The argument can go either way, I guess. Also, you left the year 1980 Wiki-linked. I would suggest linking the 1980 presidential election instead. By way of introduction, I'm the editor of the Weare Free Press. Wiki article on our paper will follow...soon! ;-) Nhprman 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion RfC

Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then [1] ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that [2] ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me [3] ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time. - ObsidianOrder 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quick reply to your comment - Storms is not an advocate, he is first and foremost a scientist; everything he says is very well supported by evidence, as you can see if you read his version. Parks may not have written the current article, but some of it reads pretty much along the lines of what he would write. Wouldn't it be best to have both Parks and Storms and let them duke it out? I'd volunteer as a mediator. ObsidianOrder 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a partisan supporter of cold fusion, I would love to see Bob Park (not "Parks") contribute to this article. I have been sorely tempted to add some of his intemperate remarks to the article, along with a few of the idiotic claims by Taubes. See: [4] No one makes a better case for cold fusion than these two. As Hamlet said in a similar context:
I'll be your foil, Laertes. In mine ignorance
Your skill shall, like a star i' th' darkest night,
Stick fiery off indeed.
--JedRothwell 20:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"edit summary" box

My appologies, I have been delinquent in putting something in the box each time I edit. I will make a concerted effort to do so 100% of the time. Thanks for the reminder. Assawyer 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from an humble Wikipedia guy

Sorry the joke offended you. --DanielCD 03:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be snappy. Just seems like lately a lot of people are uptight over the critical things being published. I like to try and lighten the atmosphere a bit, but then I find myself getting snappy as well when someone gets critical. Lesson learned. I'll try to use more tact in the future. --DanielCD 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Excellency" and other edits

24.34.186.140 and other users behaving in a strikingly similar fashion have been re-inserting "His/Her Excellency" to various governor bios. In some cases, "excellency" or other things they feel have been maliciously omitted have been used as excuses to also revert addition of a standardized, rather than hand-made, infobox. Conflicts have occurred at the following articles:

Jim Douglas, M. Jodi Rell, John Baldacci, Donald Carcieri, John Lynch, Mitt Romney, Ruth Ann Minner, and Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:39, Jan. 15, 2006

So It's Finally Over?

I've fallen so out of touch with the Walmart issue in regards to what I was doing with Citizens Action for Southern New Hampshire that I didn't even show up tonight. Thanks for letting me know the good news vicariously! Unfortunately, I think doing stuff with groups like them doesn't seem feasible anymore, you wouldn't happen to know Kevin Landrigan very well, would you? I'd love to find a job somewhere that's like his. That'd probably be better than being a Legislator it seems. Karmafist 04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Force, huh?

You think with that workload he'd be looking for an understudy? If i'm in the right frame of mind, I can also force unto myself; for example, as of this edit, i've welcomed 1,220 people to Wikipedia, roughly 1 in 700, or to put it in our local area's context, about the town of Lyndeborough to the entire state. At my current rate, i'll be at around 1 in 600 status by the end of the month. Karmafist 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Benson page

David,

This is Keith Herman. It was brought to my attention (and I have verified) that there are factual errors on your posting of Craig Benson. I beleive others have tried to edit and/or delete this information, only to have it reverted back. In addition, I have made attempts to ADD content only to have it removed. You seem to be the "administrator" of this page, so I need to know what the story is. I am confident that public figure bios should be unbiased, factual, and provide complete information. This page on Craig does none of that. I want to make additions on accomplishments, and delete factual innacuracies.

Please advise on how to make this happen.

Thanks, Keith

I'm not the page adminstrator - wikipedia article don't have administrators. This place is a free-for-all! Nobody's in charge, for better or for worse: Anybody can do just about anything.
Oh, hey, I just realized who you are! Hi, Keith!
Fixing factual errors is great; my memory is that Bensons' article had a pretty "anti-" tone that needs balancing. I recall removing some comments that seemed pretty hagiographic; if I messed up, it definitely should be fixed.
I suggest you (a) create an account, so people can send you messages about the issue (you don't have to identify yourself in the account, but it makes it easier for any back-and-forth discussion), and (b) do smallish edits, one at a time, starting with dry factual stuff that nobody can complain about. Bolster the biographic background, with dates, etc. Then move up the ladder, so to speak. But have at it - you have as much right as anybody else to edit this stuff, and more knowledge. - DavidWBrooks 14:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it really Appear?

Hi David. Thanks for your kind help on the my questioning the veracity of the article on Maxim_magazine's_20_Most_Annoying_Songs_Ever! and if it ever appeared. I had mentioned it to someone, and then needed further confirmation that it was ever published. I agree that it is fiddly, and I would not mind if it wasn't there, but that's a Wikipedia community decision. Someone did furnish a link to the actual article in Maxim's October 2005 (not September 2005) issue [5]. Best wishes and, again, thanks for your help, David. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Bambino

Hello David. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about this edit. I am tempted to revert it but am curious about your opinion. I left my comment about it on the talk page. Thanks. No Guru 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to

Put someone's name and talk page in comment section of page edits? Ur Wurst Enema 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

That. :)

DELETING THE NEW IDEAS.

To: Mr. David W.Brooks

Dear David. Thank you for your "encouraging and inspiring" message! I never knew that this magnificent site is only for celebrities, not commons... Of course, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DELETE anything YOU like in The Wikipedia, but you don't have enough power to delete new and creative ideas. Your conservative attitude CAN'T STOP the progress and development of NEW NAMES and THEIR APHORISMS. I hope YOU are, as a WELL-KNOWN REPORTER, will take a more enlightened approach to this sensitive matter.

I would be greatful for your honest (not emotional) reply.

Sincerely Yours, Leonard Simon Wisdon

Govt of NH

Hi, David. You are so right about the legislature being largely older in demographics. An the meager salary is EXACLTY why. Good edit! Hope you don't mind mine. Whenever I think of someone being "retired" (without previous warning as to what is meant by it) I think of Rick Deckard, the Blade Runner "retiring" replicants. It's a quirk, I guess, of being an editor- or maybe a BladeRunner fan! ;-) I also added a line about the size of the legislature. I heard it had actually grown larger than the House history page [6] gives it credit for. Have you heard different numbers? Later, Stephen. Nhprman 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legend Examples

Why in the World did you eliminate the urban legend examples like Mr. Ed? The urban legends section needs more examples -frenchgold

I disagree; the Web is awash is such examples. Giving context is far more important than bludgeoning readers with a list. - DavidWBrooks 15:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is just an opinion. You need to have more respect for other contributions. Adding "Mr Ed" is not out of line. If the internet already has too many examples, then why have any examples?
Please move this to the Talk page of the article, so other editors can participate. Nobody will see it here but you and me. - DavidWBrooks 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

winnipesaukee.com

I changed the "advertising" from "The most popular ... " to "A popular ... ". Then, whoever 71.243.53.123 changed it back. I should have deleted the whole statement, and I like your comment about no adversiting. Let's see if 71.243. ... comes back at us. JJ 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I have added many external links to my site (which is purely educational): http://whitemountainart.com/. But, they are relavant to the articles. I have, for example, a link on the Lake Winnipesaukee site to "Paintings of Lake Winnipesaukee." Under the bio I submitted on Benjamin Champney I have a link to "White Mountain paintings by Benjamin Champney." Under Mount Washington, I have a link to "Paintings of Mount Washington." Hopefully these links are in keeping with the spirit of the original articles.JJ 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although the link to winnipesaukee.com should not have had an advertising statement, don't you feel the link itself is OK and relavent to the article? I have used the site, and it seems to be a good site. So, why delete the link? Just asking. JJ 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it and they didn't look commercial to me, so it's OK as far as I can see. - DavidWBrooks 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geno Petralli

Hello David. I need some help from an Admin. I think the Geno Petralli article is a train wreck right now (full of pointless photographs and trivia of questionable veracity. I removed most of the photos but was quickly reverted by an anon user who based on his comments seems to feel some ownership of the article. I am hesitant to keep reverting as I don't wish to violate the 3RR rule over this. I am unsure of how to attract the attention of other editors to this article. I would appreciate and advice you have around this. No Guru 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. There was some pretty wild stuff in that article. Hopefully your edits will stick. Cheers. No Guru 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Maybe they (he) will come back with some constructive edits. No Guru 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Geno alone!

Haha. You guys are so clever. Thanks for saving the world from a wiki page on Geno Petralli that isn't up to your high standards! Good job. Now an 8 year old boy with cancer that loves Geno Petralli won't be able to enjoy the page anymore. Nice. Hope you are proud of your great wiki editing! Maybe you can get paid to do it? Wouldn't want anyone to get less than the perfect wiki page. Can't have too much Geno Petralli stuff out there. - Jim Sundberg

Newspaper Tempate?

Take a look over at the Eagle Times article. I expanded the rather small stub (check history to see it before) using a fairly simple but, I think, helpful template I threw together, which is basically:

Summary sentence about the paper...then...

==History==
==Content and format==
===Editors===
===Content===
===Circulation===
===Website===
==External links==

Let me know what you think of this. I started with that paper since I thought I could be impartial, but maybe it works for other papers. Nhprman 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the staff listing. Thanks for the feedback. Nhprman 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent disBush deletion

I was surprised and shocked when you speedily deleted template:User disBush, even though there was no censensus reached in the TFD (which defaults to a keep), and a majority of the voters voted for keep. While I believe that such userboxes should not be on Wikipedia and would have voted for a delete had I known about the poll while it was in session, the fact that you acted against consensus based on a controversial interpretation of CSD makes me worried that you are abusing your admin powers. Recall that the opinion of an administrator is technically not supposed to carry more weight than the opinions of other users. I urge you to undo the speedy deletion and reopen the TFD so that we may reach a consensus as to what to do. Where (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, good for you! Now I hope you'll speedy delete Template:User_anti-fascism, since it's pro- version was speedy deleted ("they came for the pro-fasc userbox, but I wasn't pro-fasc..."?), as was Template:User_no_Rand, despite no Rand deleted in mid-vote. I'm kind of outraged about this, trying to stay cool. Nhprman 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but the user above User:Where sure seems to think you were responsible for the deletion of disBush. Oh, well. Nhprman 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The log is here. You are mentioned as partially responsible here. Where (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out to get you? ;-)

Looks like someone's really "after you" David, from the looks of that recent NashTele edit! ;-) Don't let it get to you! Nhprman UserLists 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with your situation. It hasn't come to that yet for me, but I'm waiting for the venom one day. Hey, I added a template (pre-existing) the the Eagle Times article. I think it's quite attractive. Nhprman UserLists 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David,

Einstein's puzzle

On the Einstein's Puzzle page we're trying to stick to the exact wording of the original puzzle to avoid a version war. See the Talk:Einstein's Puzzle page of the article for details on what we've gone through so far. The sentence you deleted may or may not be needed (I don't argue one way or the other), but since it was in the original puzzle it should be left in the article since the article specifies that this is what is being shown.

Canon 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this discussion to Talk: Einstein's Puzzle. Canon 12:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey numbers

There is a criteria for including jersey numbers, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in sports. It says that jersey numbers retired by major league teams are notable (such as Major League Baseball).

If you know enough about this, I would like you to address the issue of race car numbers. I don't follow NASCAR, so I've hesitated to remove all the race car numbers that have been added lately. PrimeFan 23:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikidates

Why are you removing wikidates? Dates that are in wikidate format let readers set in their profile how dates should be represented. I like year, month, day myself. Removing wikidates breaks this preference feature. -- Geo Swan 22:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't believe the Manual of Style supports your edits. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting says:
"If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it."
You modified four dates. Three of them were full dates, the kind which I believe the MOS says you should leave wikilinked. -- Geo Swan 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very next line, I believe, applies only to stand-alone date elements, stand-alone month-names, or month-name and month-date, year and month-name shouldn't be linked. But, I think the MOS is pretty clear on the importance of supporting user's preferred date representations. Overlinking dates is a mistake, when the date you are linking does not contain all three elements, year, month-name, month-date.
You unlinked dates that had all three elements. And, I believe, you are mistaken to think it is policy to do that.
You do understand why dates get linked? When they are properly linked the reader gets to see all dates represented in their favorite format. This is considered valuable. -- Geo Swan 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. Yours was my first reaction, but I am used to them now. I don't even see them as blue links. I created an article sixe months ago, with a lot of red links. I didn't see that as a problem. The wikipedia is a work in progress. Red links are a sign of that. They mark the edges where there is room for contributors to expand the wikipedia. I was surprised how much people hated them. They unlinked all those red links. In the six months, since then, I have felt pissed off every time I added an article. I've added about four dozen since then. And every time I have to go in and amend the article, and recreate a link that someone took out. Grrr. -- Geo Swan 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND and WWIII

Thanks for snagging the WWIII edit on Nostradamus -- seems the person who did the edit missed the critical tone of the article, and thought it was a dumping grouns for Nostradamian nonsense. One question -- would you happen to be the NYT columnist with whom I sometimes agree and by whom I'm sometimes driven nuts?  :) Jim62sch 14:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he respond? So, what paper do you write for? Jim62sch 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth photo from Curse of the Bambino

Greetings. Unfortunately, there is no way to resurect a photograph, although you could re-upload it if you like. While the caption did give credit, it didn't indicate that Wikipedia had permission to use the photo. Also, we aren't able to use an image, even if Wikipedia is given permission by the copyright holder, if the terms of the permission do not include third-party use. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijoli Cribi!

Whenever you encounter a particurlarly stubborn troll, you can always report them on WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchup!

So you oppose ketchup's thixotropy? On which grounds? User:Disdero

OK. About the clean state of my page: I'm only a very casual contributor... Cheers. Michel.

Deleted Category

Hi there - why did you delete a category (Albums owned by User:RichardHarrold) which illustrated what kind of person I am better than a million userboxes could. User:RichardHarrold

Deleted category

Hi there - the category WAS helping people get to the pages for the albums I own. There. You think you're so clever, don't you? User:RichardHarrold.

MobyGames

I do not think the MobyGames links count as linkspam. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Wikipedia:External_links specifically

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

My rationale is credits, extensive cover art, detailed release info and screenshots

As always your opinions/comments are welcome. --Flipkin 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st letter big

Well, because it is not effective to discuss it, now my entry contributions are spelled "1st letter big", UCASE or so-called "chicago stule".

My user page does not look like a "hoax"???

regards, User:Akidd_dublin 20060319

redlinks ... alas ...

Yes, I know what you mean--personally I love redlinks; they're how we build the encyclopedia and identify new articles to write ... that text I pasted in to there was one I copied from other date articles, and I'm tempted to leave in only "please do not add yourself" since that's 90% of the problem. (Indeed, the redlinks on the List of Renaissance composers is my main to-do list, still, to this day.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flatland movie

Hi David

Just curious why you deleted the link to the Flatland film from the Flatland page. I think it would be of interest to people interested in the book.

Jeffrey Travis

As the Talk page noted, the movie doesn't appear to actually exist yet. Is that wrong? - DavidWBrooks 11:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not feed the trolls?

He's continually vandalising his own talk page by removing warnings, while continuing to control the Melungeon article. How does one get a troll to stop from revert warring? IP Address 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you are very ignorant! I wonder how many others you judge on a daily basis. IP Address 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to me on this Site

Greetings my name is Joyce Olushola and I did a google search and saw that you deleted some content containing my name. I would like to know what that content was, who wrote it, and why it was deleted. I concurred with the authors opinion that I "rock". Thanks

PS can I get more infortion on Wikipedia in genreal? THanks

Go to the Main_Page and start reading. Have fun! - DavidWBrooks 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Biography

I have reverted your unexplained deletion of the World of Biography query posted to Talk:Audrey Hepburn. Unless the content of a statement is vandalism, obviously illegal, completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, or there is otherwise some consensus, I am under the understanding that Wikipedia rules prohibit the deletion of other people's Talk page comments. It appears to me World of Biography -- which could well be a spamming site -- is going about things the right way by asking permission. If you have an objection to the statement, or do feel it needs to be deleted for some reason, I invite you to state your case on the Hepburn talk page. 23skidoo 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in. Not all of us check places like the Pump, however, so it might have avoided some confusion if an explanation had been included in the edit summary. My revert followed a revert on another talk page where someone disagreed with something another person wrote and changed the comment without permission, so my radar was going at the time. Cheers. 23skidoo 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% on rollbacks. They should have some sort of edit summary option, because while it's fine for reverting obvious vandalism, if you are needing to do multiple reverts for more complicated reasons (such as World of Biography) it's a pain. BTW please do feel free to delete the World of Biography from the Hepburn talk page again if you haven't already. 23skidoo 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon edits

The reason you got lost is I had mistakenly deleted the end of the article when making my revisions. I have since reverted the article to the last edit by me and added the end, as well as bulleting the entire "Trivia" section. I believe all is well now, thanks for catching my error! --Assawyer 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his excellency

I beg to differ with your belief that "His Excellency" is not the governor's official title. I will agree it is hardly used, however it is in the State Constitution:

Part II., Art. 41. Governor, Supreme Executive Magistrate. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of New Hampshire, and whose title shall be His Excellency...

--Assawyer 22:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki culture

Thanks for your comment - I agree, we should move the Thor H. stuff into his article - feel free to do it you get to it before I do - tho I think some of it is a bit off the wall. I'm untangling the Maori traditional figure Tiki out of it first. The Tiki culture is a whole nother thing and fits under the Tiki culture title well as you suggest. We may need to consult User:JarlaxleArtemis who wrote the TH section. There is also a Kon-Tiki article. Cheers Kahuroa 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to NH population list

Hi David,

I'm still new to this, so I hope this message gets to you properly. The italicized note about the various town populations was one that I had put on probably a year or more ago, when there were some problems with the list -- users were listing the Census Designated Place population of Derry and the other towns and not realizing that they weren't including the populations for the entire towns. Looking at the list now, I see that the populations are correct and there is no mention anywhere of other portions of the towns that would have smaller populations, so havingt the note there seemed to raise more questions than it answered.

This whole slightly confusing issue would've been avoided if, when I made the original note, I had realized that it should've gone into the discussion section. The town and city populations as listed now are accurate, and therefore my old note seemed to be unnecessary. Do you think there should still be reference to Census Designated Places one way or other? As far as I can tell, people doing the populations now seem to understand the finer points of Census data -- the individual town entries seem always able to distinguish between entire town populations and those for CDPs.

Yes, I'm located in Concord -- haven't taken the time to set up a user page yet.

Mobile Home Page

This is getting old. I'm using the links and content as examples, not advertising. Stop editing please!

Tiki Culture

I moved the TH stuff into the TH article. I hope no one gets upset but it seems only logical --Kahuroa 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The K-Trio and caps

I didn't mean that The New York Times didn't capitalize its own The. I meant that *in* the Times articles about the Kingston Trio, they always use the lower case except at the beginning of the sentence. As in, "Joan Baez and the Kingston Trio are well-known singers." Moreover, here in Wiki, Wiki rules are followed, not Web site rules or internal rules of the person/item being written about. Go to the Time Magazine article and you will see a long argument about how Wiki treats Time Mag. Time itself calls itself Time MAGAZINE or TIME Magazine, I forget which. After it was argued about for a long time, it was agreed that Wiki calls it Time Magazine, to meet Wiki convention. Furthermore, and just as important to me, I went to my collection of old K-Trio albums and picked up 6 of them at random. Two of them had no text on the back cover. Of the others, however, THE KINGSTON TRIO BACK IN TOWN, says "In San Francisco a few years ago the Kingston Trio made a swift...." SOMETHIN' ELSE says: "The new sound of the Kingston Trio...." From NEW FRONTIER: "...a new batch of ballads that reflect the Kingston Trio approach...." And from COLLEGE CONCERT: "The voice you hear introducing this live performance by the Kingston Trio is that of...." Case closed, as far as I am concerned. Hayford Peirce 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Wondering if you wouldn't mind eyeballing this for me. I have the feeling that it's a vanity page and fairly strong evidence that some (though not all) of the "Keep" votes are from a group of friends of his. It just feels like they're trying to wikilawyer their way into keeping the page. Is there any strong argument I'm forgetting? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as a very lame page, so I voted delete. But there's no absolute argument; in theory, why not have a wikipedia page for every person on Earth? - DavidWBrooks 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly the problem. Do you have any advice at least as far as how to counter the group of his friends trying to slide the vote? I've added it to RfC, but from my past experience there, I doubt more than one or two people will comment. Personally, I also think that the notability guidelines are too loose in that the "publication with 5000+ subscribers" rule technically could include millions of people around the world. But that's a whole different debate... Girolamo Savonarola 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've become much more inclusivist over the years. What harm does does a stupid article like that do, really? It's not like we're a paper encyclopedia and you have to flip past it to get to a real article. Frankly, fighting the not-notable fight has become so huge that I've mostly given up, and only battle if it's a URL-laden spammer. - DavidWBrooks 12:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverted

I have revereted the anon's vandalism in the Iraq article.

Trilogy

Thanks for your compliments on my rewrite of the triology page. - Rorschach567 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

If you made it more clear on how to cite material, I would cite it however you wanted me too. I think it's ridiclous that you're going to delete the entire article because I posted information that I did cite just not the way you wanted. If you know what needs to be cited why don't you help me out. I just started posting yesterday, I could use some help.

The Beatles

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
Todo list:

--kingboyk 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. Freeking spammers won't even leave the anti-spam articles alone. Z4ns4tsu 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons

You expressed much disintrest in the aforementioned article, and now it's on AfD. Just wondering if you felt like voting. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist

Why did you revert the edits by 68.85.147.105 to the Economist article? Looked good to me. Dave Runger 17:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Timbouctou pic

Hi David. Yeah, i love it and i've seen it many times here in Morocco until i found it in wiki Commons today and it was Eureka! By the way, could you join the discussion about merging The Economist editorial stance that i created and The Economist, as i see the discussion above this message? Cheers -- Szvest 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]

Lawrence Durrell

I met Lawrence_Durrell once at his house in Sommieres, just before he died. The reason for my visit was that he and my father met in Cyprus in the the early 1950s and I just wanted to meet him. I have signed copies of first editions of The Black Book and Bitter Lemons (with a dedication to my father, Norman Joly). I have never read The_Alexandria_Quartet!! Gordo 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of yours on Typography talk page

David, that comment you left on the Typography:talk page. What was that? What did you mean exactly? Was it meant as a flame, or provocation, or what? Contempt for expertise? What's up? Instead of that, can we have a mature adult conversation?

All I'm asking you to do is explain your attitude and what you meant by your cynical mocking remarks.

I'm glad to be quitting Wikipedia. It makes me happy. If you dislike my critcism of Wikipedia or think Wikipedia has merit as an encyclopedia, you should obtain a set of Britannica and discover how detailed a real encyclopedia is, and discover professional writing. Wikipedia is representative of the standard of writing on the internet in general. Compared to printed books by scholars and real writers, written content on the internet is kiddy grade. The problem with internet users is their lack of realism regarding quality.

BTW, I am not really quitting Wikipedia. That was a joke. Interesting post because look at the cynical reaction it drew from you.

Arbo 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothman rv

Just a friendly reminder to be careful when reverting pages. There were several obvious vandalisms of Mothman, followed by a few edits by a different anon-user that reverted (at least most) of those vandalisms. I assume you were trying to revert the vandalism, as well, but you accidentally reverted back TO the vandalism. I made sort of the same mistake, but I believe it's correct now. B.Mearns*, KSC 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long comments

Thank you very much for your comment. Mine will also be short, as my concentration level is the same as a goldfish (laugh...)

Is there a way we can help editors to be nice to each other, and to not treat the pages as a debating/problem forum? The factual content of the pages is paramount, after all.

I am often reminded of the Python´s sketch: "Would you like the five minutes or the full half-hour?"

Have fun

andreasegde 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer? No. Long answer? No, there is no way to make people be nice in an anonymous forum, as the Internet has proven for a decade. It's part of life at wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Concord Monitor discriminates against gay and lesbian advertisers in the personal section. Am I wrong?

Gramophone Record

I certainly hope you don't feel you're on a "losing" side! If you still have reservations about the picture, let's try to find another one to replace MMT. (Certainly, audrey's idea of multiple disks is a good one -- I just haven't had an opportunity to try to take such a photo, and probably won't for a while as my record collection is packed!)

On the other hand, I agree with you that cool, careful discussion is a dangerous trend! Where would we turn for entertainment? :-) zowie 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...as if it were of staggering import and should shake the community to its marrow..."

"Lots of people give up on wikipedia, and often for good reason; Lord knows it's a mess. Those who announce the decision loudly, as if it were of staggering import and should shake the community to its marrow, come across as self-important buffoons - to me, at least. Hence my snide and unnecessary retort. - David W Brooks 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

Nevermind. If that's how you percieved my announcement, you'reyou've been decieved by the faceless, clueless, disjointed nature of text-based communication online. It makes victims out of all of us. My mode of expression was just my way of venting my frustration. In literary circles this kind of writing is known as figurative or creative use of speech. I'm colorful because—clue—I'm a creative writer who works in the advertising biz.

Instead of assuming, you could have asked...

This is so trivial it isn't worth debating, which is why I questioned your comments, which came across as uncivil.

The way I characterized some Wikipedians could also be mistaken for uncivil conduct, which I'm against.

All the best to you and take care. Arbo 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles info box

While it may not belong in an overview, I think that info box was really good and informative. Can you please make sure that it gets included somewhere.--Crestville 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, seems a good idea. At the bottom?--Crestville 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Petit Vingtième

Thanks for the corrections. That's what I like about Wikipedia :-) I meant that it was rumoured (I can't find the reference for now, I'll try to add it) that the circulation (indeed) was five times as high on Thursday as it was on other pages. This would of course be quite an amazing feat for a youth supplement. Fram 11:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a quick note about the ignorant IP blogging The Beatles talk page

Just thought you'd like to know... IP User:67.189.99.161 is an anon sock for User:Dragong4 who was blocked for 6 months earlier today for vandalism, personal attacks and constant page disruptions. I have been following behind him trying to clean up his garbage but he jumps around a bit and some of his damage is irreversable...unfortunately. Thought you'd be better served knowing his full history. Hopefully he gets bored and just goes away. Good day! 216.21.150.44 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffling

I thought you might be amused by this tidbit in an interview with Chuck Klosterman, since you started the waffle article way back when:

[Wikipedia is] something I'm kind of obsessed with at the moment. The thing that I want to find out is who's doing the entry for butter. There's an entry for butter! What would motivate someone to do that? There's an entry for waffles; I cannot fathom what that person's motive is. And it's good — it's got the history of waffles! It's amazing to me!

Cheers! — Catherine\talk 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making me hungry! Yep, looks like you and I got started here about the same time. It sure was a lot easier to stumble over basic topics that didn't have an article back then. Well, good luck and happy editing on ETAOIN SHRDLU (speaking of obscure!) ... (grin) — Catherine\talk 15:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belt regions of the United States

Hmm... I don't have a lot of explicit sources, though I think it's sort-of common knowledge. It is a natural thing for these crop regions to be belt-like in shape, and this usage goes back at least to the 1860s, while "Bible Belt" is only from 1925. The ultimate source here would of course be the OED, but of the lesser dictionaries I have on hand, they include in the definition for "belt": "a zone given over to the raising of one plant, e.g. wheat" in one and in another "an elongated region having distinctive properties or characteristics: a belt of cotton plantations".--Pharos 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxx release

I'll let your revision stand, though I disagree. The Oxx has already been pulled from several of the Hippo's distribution locations because of obscenity. Good get on the Manch Daily though -- forgot about that. --nelsonleese 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nashua edits were good -- thanks. Wal-Mart takeover of Building #19 I felt relects a national trend. It is also featured in the Building #19 article. TIF districs are under a good deal of scrutiny as well, even on wikipedia.--nelsonleese 17:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess-related deaths

If you're going to change something that really doesn't need changing, could you at least try to change it to something that's grammatically correct? Thank you in advance.--Anchoress 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Supreme Court - GA nominee

If you could provide your input on New Hampshire Supreme Court, as I nominated it for GA status. Currently the nomination is on hold due to the intro and image sourcing. I subsequently added to the intro to make it broader, but wanted your input regarding the intro and the article in general. Thanks Assawyer 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U might be interested in this reply, faintly

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_and_Metal_Bands JDG 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Disc Record

Please refrain from reverting the title of this article. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Analogue Disc Record, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia --4.243.176.199 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

 You may as well give up now. I swear on all that is good and just that I shall NEVER give up the fight against evil. Revert the title back all you want. I will always be there to protect the innocent. --4.243.176.199 16:12, 15 Jul 2006 (UTC)


2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash

Help!, other useres are trying to delete my article but I objected saying that the plane crash is notable. Please vote keep on the vote page in order to save this article. Storm05 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles trivia on the chopping block

Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day, as they say…. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion in Geocaching

Hi David. I see you deleted my edit in this. I'm certainly not going to argue with you but I did think that the link might be of interest to some people as it is where it originated from. Either way - have a good day - cheers --Nigel 13:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly so far my experience of wiki has been of people who are courteous and encouraging, I was bound to encounter an exception so time. Thanks for a learning experience Nigel 21:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - do as you would be done by time! Your revert didn't particularly bother me (though you did take the whole sentence out so I'm not sure what you mean by "small edit that just trimmed it a bit"!) but I would have liked a quick answer to the "why" bit BUT my day hadn't been that good. So please accept my apologies for my second posting to you, it was wrong of me. However as a newbie on wiki I really would appreciate knowing why a single sentence about the origins of letterboxing which at the very least heavily influenced geocaching wasn't appropriate (I really don't want it back in, just why it shouldn't be there)? It will help me learn. Thanks and again apologies -- Nigel 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - just thought a sentence on the partial origins of geocaching under "History" wasn't inappropriate. -- Nigel 10:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worm Quartet

I saw that you've done some work on the Dr. Demento article. I thought you may be a better authority than I to speak on the Worm Quartet AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Countries

Please add the population of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC): 264172 (According to De facto census in 2006 March held in the TRNC). Note that population of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be added to the related table since the number in population of Turkey does not include the population of TRNC. Hence, in order to derive the population of world correctly, one must add the TRNC's population to the list.

Population of Countries (2)

You have written: This article uses the UN propsectus, which includes the entire island - that's why the Turkish population of Cyrpus is included under Cyprus, not under Turkey. - DavidWBrooks 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


It is a fact that not all countries in the table you mentioned (UN propsectus) is a member of United Nations. Think that there are 192 member countries of UN whereas the table you mentioned includes 230 countries. Hence; whether being a member country of UN is irrelevant of being located in the table.

Note also that if one includes the population of TRNC in the Rep. of Cyprus then one can misunderstand that

1) the population of Rep. of Cyprus (formed by Greeks on the South of island) is 830000 and 2) there are 830000 Greeks in the island. 3) this 830000 is located in the south where the sovereignity of Rep. of Cyprus is only valid.

However the facts are: 1) 264172 (2006 de facto census) of 830000 is Turks. 2) This 264172 is located on the North. 3) This 264172 does not have citizenship of Rep. of Cyprus and hence cannot be included in its population.

Population of Countries (3)

I am sure about the population of TRNC since there is a 2006 April Census held in the presence of representatives from EU. But your fears about the population is partially true:

The population counts in TRNC (North) and Rep. of Cyprus (South) are held in different times. But, the population of the whole island is calculated by simply adding the pop. in the north and pop. in the south. (2006 Pop. of Island = 2005 Pop. Census in the south + 2006 Pop. Census in the North). The problem when calculating the pop. of the whole island is that When one calculates 2006 Pop, s(he) does NOT know how population increased in the South from 2005 to 2006. I think now the issue is clear.NikosPolitis 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)NikosPolitis[reply]

(thx for signing advise: 4 tildes :) )

Population of Countries (4)

The official figures of both Rep. of Cyprus and TRNC:

Pop. of Rep. of Cyprus: 749200 (2004 Census - most recent census -)

[ Official web page: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/4E24598BFC64594AC22570BD0035F021?OpenDocument&sub=1&e= ]

Pop. of TRNC: 264172 (2006 April Census - most recent census -) [Official web page: http://nufussayimi.devplan.org/population%20%20and%20housing%20%20census.pdf ]

Total population: 749200 + 264172 = 1013372

Thx for your attentiveness. If you can make the correction 835000-->1013372, I will be glad to you. NikosPolitis 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)NikosPolitis[reply]


Rubbish oid

Interesting to see you edited it :) My fellow admins and editors discouraged me from putting it up as an afd. surely, just because one person alledgedly creates a word - does that make it sufficient to have an article in wikipedia? the precedent would allow us to put all of douglas adams meaning of liff words as discrete articles? SatuSuro 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave it now - it would be disapointing to create a fuss about it - thinking about it further the notoriety of an afd or other stuff attracts attention it doesnt need, where it might just die a natural death in time  :) SatuSuro 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:New_England#Flag

Hi David -- I'm trying to avoid an edit war with User:AaronS over the inclusion and placement of the various flags in the New England article, and since you've expressed an opinion before, I'd appreciate it if you weighed in. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Island

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to The Black Island article under the name TeeHeeHee. Everyone's free to edit of course, but you didn't explain why you reverted the edits, I felt they added to the article. Chocolate72 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer you easily if you don't have an account. The rollback button, alas, doesn't allow placing a comment in the Edit Summary box. I removed it because it struck me as unsupported opinion - even incorrect opinioin, since I disagree with the assesment. - DavidWBrooks 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I...think I see your point, I'll redo it a little differently. Chocolate78 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a journalist hiding the truth?

So, David, a newpaper reporter, decides that scientific evidence is too damming and therefore must be deleted. Oh I get it, a NPOV does not include scientific ideas. Very brilliant and also very telling of your position, thanks for that - Tommy Mandel 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (((regarding crop circles)))[reply]

big swinging dick

The legendary Cuchullain intended the article for There once was a man from Nantucket to sound like a parody of a literature class. (...literary trope ...mythopoeic protagonist ... hypersexualized persona...) Giving an obscene limerick the Encyclopedia Britainica treatment is part of the fun of Wikipedia.

"Well-hung" is so plebeian. I couldn't think of a better one-word adjective than "rubirosian"; can you. An alternative approach would be "hypersexualized persona with a stupendous phallus". Great literature is never easy.Ghosts&empties 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postcrossing

Hi there DavidWBrooks

I invite you to put this userbox on your userpage !Just click edit this page to see the code for it ! Happy Postcrossing! [User:Swollib|Swollib]] 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun RFAr

Just in case you hadn't noticed, tommysun has started an RFAr against myself and jeffire (oddly enough). In regards to reverting his edits on Crop Circles. --Darkfred Talk to me 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blend (linguistics) vs. Portmanteau

Hey buddy. I am going to continue the fun here on the podcast talk page... Wanna come play? Just for fun :^) --Travisthurston 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Curse of the Bambino

Why did you revert my edit? Tzadik 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typographic style for captions, re: Maple syrup article

Hi David. Could you please cite for me where the Wiki Manual of Style prohibits use of bold type in captions? I am have read through the style manual, and on the subject it offers all this:


and on the actual Captions article, this:


Italics are mine. I am fairly law abiding, but, as in law, I consider that which is not expressly forbidden, reserved to my own judgment. Was the caption style broke(n)? No. Why did I fix it? Because I think the bold lead-in helps. It is not so radical, many publications, including encylopedias, use this convention.

I may be missing something in the above quotes, or in a deeper layer of style guidelines I have not, as yet, discovered. If I have committed an official Wiki typographic faux pas please accept my thanks for fixing it. If not please revert to my previous version. Thanks. My best, Jim CApitol3 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typographic style for captions

Hi David. I think we may have a draw here. I disagree with your take on this. I am rarely unwilling to try something for the sole reason I have not seen others do it. Except, I suppose, home dentistry.

The quotes regarding caption style in the manual:

"specific formats are a matter of taste" and "This page is designed as a guideline towards writing good captions; it is not promulgated as a set of inflexible rules."

are something I interpret differently.

Who knows, perhaps this is a genetic Vermont-New Hampshire thing in how we experience the same text? This is meant only in the best of good humor. As a designer and typographer I use bold very judiciously, and upper case even more so. My best, Jim. CApitol3

reverted changes on "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe"

You sir need to answer the following question: Why are you removing valid content?

The changes I made were: 1) accurate and factual 2) accepted during the period from which they originated 3) applied to the context of the article 4) contained no copyrighted material (predates 1923)

It appears from the edit history that you've had a small war with someone else on this article. I sincerely hope you didn't mistake him for me.

I've reviewed a number of the numerous "reverted edits" you make, it appears you have an excessive habit of _destroying_ the work of others. Many of the things you are removing appear to be correct, useful, and accurate. How say you?

Upon further review, it appears to me that you have violated at least four of Wikipedia's rules by reverting my changes. While, I have violated none. - 68.60.59.250

Thanks for putting my changes back. I've added a slight clarification. Hopefully, someone will be inspired to find and contribute earlier 'tiger' versions.

Reverting Benford's law from 3 decimal points to 1 decimal point

Hi David,

Would like to ask why you reverted my probability value (in Benford's law) with 3 decimal points back to 1 decimal point. Wouldn't 3 decimals be more accurate and of reasonable numeric length? Thanks.

Das my 00:33, 5 October 2006 (GMT +8:00)

leap year?

What was wrong with my leap year concept?

I can't answer if I don't know who to answer. - DavidWBrooks 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question is in regard to the half-birthday page. I had made a change that I thought improved the page. It explained how half-birthdays were effected by leap years. Take a look at two sites I found: http://halfbirthdaycalculator.com/half_birthday_explained.htm and http://peterjanes.ca/peterj/half-birthday.cgi, These sources back up my change. Do you disagree with this way of thinking?

Let's take this to the Talk page of the article - that's the best way to discuss changes in articles, so other folks can see this. - DavidWBrooks 12:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject New Hampshire

Hi, I see that you're also a member of Wikiproject New Hampshire, so I was wondering if there was anything you needed help with or such -- i'm trying to branch out and get more into the social side of Wikipedia. People Powered 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Uh oh! See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atlant. Now the excrement will really hit the ventilator! ;-)

Atlant 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, thank you for your official support!

Atlant 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!
Atlant 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

What's the matter with you anyway?? "No method of calculating pi was known until recently"????? Bullshit. If that were true, then what do you think that article is about? Specifically which recent method of calculating pi are you suggesting somehow invalidates all of its predecessors? Or did you mean Archimedes' work in the 3rd century BC is "recent"? Michael Hardy 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've posted the comment below at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics:

"History of numerical approximations of π" really weird edit war---mathematicians please help

Look at the recent edit history of history of numerical approximations of π. User:DavidWBrooks has inserted this bit of wisdom into the article:


("radius"! Sic.)


Of course someone came to clean up this nonsense, but here's what he (user:Henning Makholm) wrote:


Is there something remotely approximating some correct statement in that? If so, what is it? (Makholm left the ratio as circumference-to-radius rather than circumference-to-diameter.) Michael Hardy 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my link?

Hi David, I was just curious as to why you deleted the link (love-new-hampshire.com) that I placed in the external links section of the New Hampshire page. Is the website love-new-hampshire.com not relevant to New Hampshire?

It didn't add anything that wasn't already in the article. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links related to topics - there are dozens of similar pages for NH, and for every state. - DavidWBrooks 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I'm afraid I was just complying with "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one." --Eltener 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Of Name Numerology Links

Hi David,

Why did you remove the link to my Names Numerology Page. So many people came there and said what a great tool it was, I think it's quite worthy of a link, being unique. My algorithms were extracted based on my readings of the Numerology page. - www.birthvillage.com/babyname.php

Please take the discussion to the Talk page of the article, so others can participate. I'll answer you there. - DavidWBrooks 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamFal

Hey David

I haven't been logging into wiki lately... I just got your August message about GamFal. If you flip a coin 1,000 times and record the distribution of how long it takes you to get a tail, you will find it creates close to a normal bell curve of data. 50 heads + 1 head MUST be microscopically less likely in order to create this bell curve. Obviously, you won't ever get 50 heads in a row even if you flipped a coin a billion times... but this is because the behavior of the coin is constrained by the bell curve which describes the behavior. It can't operate outside of this "distribution of possibility." The difference in chance between 1 coin flip is so insignificant that it's not worth mentioning. I hypthesize a .00000000000000000000000000001% difference in a coin flip. Therefore, knowing how many heads preceded a flip makes no difference on whether it's head or tails. Again, a tail MUST be nanoscopically more likely otherwise your coin flipping data would not form a bell-like curve. Of course, I've been wrong many times before, but this is just my current "metaphysical" hypothesis.

Dave

share@yearbookearth.org

Nope - wrong; see the Talk wherever this came up. Sorry. - DavidWBrooks 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Galton board can serve as a useful example of how such binomial distributions play out. The Museum of Science, Boston has a nice one.
Atlant 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

query from "A History of Pi" editor

As we debate the finer points of book publication, I have to ask: are you *really* 12? - DavidWBrooks 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... how did you know that? Pacaman 20:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I was curious about how long you had been on wikipedia, as I often am with editors I'm working with, so I looked at the history of your page. There was a long gap after - I forget when, last October maybe, and I wondered why, so I opened the last page before the gap and it said you were 11. No big deal - I'm old enough to be your father's older brother, but happily that doesn't matter here. - DavidWBrooks 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet(not just on Wikipedia), people sometimes stereotype because of my age, so I removed it from my user page. I hate when people underestimate my intelligence. I read History of Pi just because I'm a major math geek- I'm in geometry in 7th grade. When reading the book, the kids in my science class gave me the nickname "Pi Guy". Pacaman 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the reason I stopped editing in October was mainly because the new asoue book came out. Before that I was mainly updating ASOUE articles, and I just took a break after the new book came out. I did the same thing happened in October of this year. Pacaman 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, at the risk of sounding like every other adult who can't stop giving advice, if you like A History of Pi I would suggest anything by Underwood Dudley, particularly Mathematical Cranks, which may be my favorite book. It's published by the Mathematical Association of America and I'm not certain it's in print at the moment, but it should be. Rudy Rucker's non-fiction books (4th Dimension, Mind Tools) are also fine, and of course Godel Escher Bach is a classic, although you might find it slightly tough going in spots. My son's in calculus as a sophomore; sounds like you're on the same track! - DavidWBrooks 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm reading Man and Number. It describes how early people invented the concept of numbers and how orignally nobody saw a relation between, for example, 2 horses and 2 eggs. I'll see if I can find any of Underwood Dudley's books. Pacaman! 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etaoin Shrdlu - linotype keyboard

If you took that picture, just added to EAOIN SHRDLU, you 
need to say so on the photo page and give a copyright notice - 
otherwise somebody will come along and delete it.

I DID take the picture, as evidenced by the CC licensing tag in the image page: { {self |cc-by-sa-2.5 } }

If this is not the proper procedure, please advise.

EVP article

Saw your edits and think they are, IMO, an example of what is needed. This article is a mess. It needs help. LuckyLouie 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

New England Telephone very much exists as it always has, as a subsidiary of a larger company, whether it's AT&T, NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, or as it is now, Verizon. Please stop vandalizing this page, as that is what you are doing. - User:X570 (Nov. 19)

NE Tel

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/112/112856.html X570 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 Bell Operating companies, all are subsidiaries of a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) except for 1, Cincinnati Bell.

Verizon New England Telephone and Telegraph, Inc. is the full and proper name of the company. Verizon New England is a d/b/a name.

X570 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are now 21 Bell Operating Companies as Southern Bell and South Central Bell has consolidated, and Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific Northwest Bell consolidated.X570 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mention, the logo is the logo because it is the logo of New England Telephone itself. "A NYNEX Company" is there because it is where the logo was picked up from, http://www.bell.com/nynex_ad.htm.

The article should not be moved for a couple of reasons, and that is 1)VNET&T is the full proper name of the company, and 2)to remain consistant with the pages about the other Bell Operating Companies, as with the exceptions I mentioned before (the companies that consolidated: BellSouth Telecommunications, Qwest Corporation), and companies that were part of the original Bell Atlantic territory, that did officially drop their traditional names (New Jersey Bell became Bell Atlantic-NJ, then Verizon-NJ). All of the BOCs that are now part of the 'new' AT&T retain their traditional identities, though, for example the d/b/a of Pacific Bell is now AT&T California.

IM me at QueensPlazaSouth on AIM X570 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I don't have IM - DavidWBrooks 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Mountains

Mr. Brooks - You seem as if you might be interested in WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains. This is an area that we need vastly more coverage on; visit our project page and consider joining. Thanks for your help! -- Sturgeonman 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a good, hearty, honest laugh

I stumbled upon your pithy prose on the Talk:Edit War page, and wanted to sincerely thank you for such a great line. It absolutely made my day. — David Spalding Talk/Contribs 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my year watching Wikipedia I thought I'd seen all variations of edit wars - at religion articles, science/pseudoscience articles, history/politics articles, etc. - but for the last day or so an edit war has been raging at, of all things, Curse of the Bambino! (This is a jokey reference to the inability of Boston's baseball team to win a title.) That's like watching a fistfight over whether Twinkies are tastier than Ho-Hos...

— DavidWBrooks, 2004

Military brat

Hey there Dave, Looks like you used to be a regular on the Military brat page. A few weeks ago, I submitted it to the military history peer review. They didn't like the name "Military Brat" for the article on brats, they thought that it should be changed to something more indicative of the US focus. They also didn't like the idea of trying to globalize it because that would 'add more bias than it eliminates.' I placed it up for FAC, and the FAC didn't like the US centricity of the article either, thus to get this passed, I changed the name to Military brat (U.S. subculture) which is what the article describes, but I'm not sure if that is the best name. Thus, I opened a discussion on the name. Is that the best name or would "U.S. Military Brat" or something else be better? I would love your input on the talk page.Balloonman 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 16th division English Football League

The English Football League System has a pyramid structure of 20+ divisions. That covers 7500+ teams. The 16th level of this system is roughly equivalent to really good "Church League" softball teams in the U.S. Yet, because the entire soccer structure in England is managed under a single umbrella organization, it is theoretically possible for a team at this level to eventually reach the highest levels. This is like my church league softball team playing for the World Series against the Yankees. Because of this theoretical mobility within the system, some people think that every one of the 7500+ teams is notable enough to get their own Wikipedia Page. They don't. There is no press. There are no reliable sources. It still doesn't stop people from starting very contentious and pointless flame wars on AfD's about keeping them. They pop up once in a while. Quite fun, really. That is the context you missed. --Jayron32 00:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Wonder of the World‎

Greetings, David! I saw that you reverted my edit in this article [7]. Well, granted, it is rather goofy, but the tone of the article is not terribly serious as well (come on! the Astrodome? Conjoined twins? Andre the Giant?). Maybe it is not necessary to erase the reference to the SImpsons, provided the list is not too long. Regards and thanks for your time Mrbluesky 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Paul is Dead

Glad to help, David. As for having just one subarticle for all the clues, I think the problem with that is eventually, it could have the same size problem that the main article's been having. Having one subarticle for each album would fundamentally limit the size of each subarticle (or at least, it would keep them from getting too big for a longer period of time). There are only so many clues that can be found in each album. --The President of Cool 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after I finish creating the subarticles, I intend to zap the remaining clues listed in the main article completely, but if someone else does that I don't mind. --The President of Cool 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think that if all the clues are removed from the main article, people will simply go to the various subarticles. On the other hand, maybe people would be more likely to read them if the most famous ones are left on the main page (such as "Turn me on, dead man" and the "funeral" on the cover of Abbey Road. I think we should discuss this on the main article's talk page. That way, we can see what others think. --The President of Cool 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Mount Washington

I know that you are an expert in New Hampshire and its geography. Please see my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Washington_%28New_Hampshire%29#Kensett_Image_in_this_article. I need people to agree (or disagree) with me, but I'm certain the Kensett is not of Mount Washington. JJ 16:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About "Brazilian states"

Hi David,

Sorry for disturbing you here, rs.

I would like to know if when you said "do you know how to do a proper move" you were refering only to how to use the "move" button or about enwiki-specific procedures like insert a template in the article, list the page in some kind of category or something like that.

If you want to opine about the move, the links are: Talk:São Paulo (state) and Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)‎.

Thank you again,

Raphael.lorenzeto 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hello

Just saying hello to a fellow Wikipedian from Nashua :-) - JNighthawk 07:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Kearsarge

Care to add your two cents worth to this discussion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Kearsarge_%28Carroll_County%2C_New_Hampshire%29? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi David.

RE the byronbayearcandles.com.au link on the ear candles entry.

The other two links are highly advertising bases. THe link i am trying to include contains more useful info re ear candling.

Can it be included?

stuart

Please move this conversation to the Talk page of the article, so everybody can participate. - DavidWBrooks 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2006_archive&oldid=1186244593"