User talk:DavidWBrooks/2018 archive
Mondegreen
David,
Thanks for editing the article, and especially adding the section Standardized and recorded mondegreens. I wrote the Twelve Days of Christmas paragraph, and I agree that it and the following paragraph belong in a separate subsection. I'm rather fond of this little article (if you want your mind expanded a tad, read the Steven Conner lecture cited in the Psychology section), so I appreciate other editors improving it. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
David,
What do you think of the new Dutch language addition? Mondegreen or Soramimi? BTW, I'll be in Peterborough on Jan. 20 for an incredible 10 hour contra dance extravaganza ("Snowball"). Peterborough is one of the holy sites of the contra dance world! Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
alice springs murder capital kerfuffle
Your recent editing history at Alice Springs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
For your sake, I ask you to read and follow WP:BRD. This article has a long accepted WP:STATUSQUO form, and you are attempting to alter that without consensus. Alice being the murder capital of Australia is a statement of fact with a reliable source. I am trying to assume good faith, but so far you have to tried to remove this material because the newspaper article doesn’t provide sufficient background when it uses the statement, then because it doesn’t adequately define the statement when it uses it, and now because you claim that the statement isn’t used at all. You need to clarify for other editors what your real objection is. As far as the phrase not appearing, I can only say that it is used in the 10th paragraph,immediately above the image captioned “A drunken fight between brothers...”. To quote “It remains the nation’s murder capital and one of the most dangerous towns in Australia”. I have already quoted this in the edit summaries, and you yourself have aknowledged that you found the phrase “most damgerous towns” so I am somewhat baffled by your inability to see the phrase “murder capital”. If you still have problems, put the quote I just prvoded into Google and you will get a direct link to the Herald Sun article with phrase highlighted. Anyway, at this juncture all yout concerns have been adressed and I urge you once again to repect WP:BRD and get consensus for any further changes on the talk page of the article. Before you do I suggest that you take a moment to clarify for yourself and other editors precisely what your objection is, rather than presenting different reasons each time for the exact same edit. Mark Marathon (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note to future self: this guy drops that template on anybody who disagrees with him.
15 years of editing!
|
Hey, DavidWBrooks. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
French wikipedia
Ooooooh - I checked on an article on the French wikipedia to see if it had more information than our version (it does) and was automatically greeted by a bot, creating a talk page. So now there's a DavidWBrooks on the French wikipedia! I will have a stereotypical French drink to celebrate! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey hopeless Idiot
Don't ever insult me that way. You useless, hopeless editor. My edits are way better than yours Uddhav9 (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- (Note to future self - this concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._H._Hardy)
KT 2018
Hello DWB - Thanks for the long overdue edit to the lede of The Kingston Trio. I know that you and I have been editing along parallel lines for quite a few years now, and I've enjoyed your work. I'm not sure if you're aware of how volatile, bitter, and emotional this most recent change to the group in 2017 has proven to be, but I'm going to take the liberty of editing your sentence a bit so as to placate all sides in the dispute while remaining simply factual. The section in the article called "Trademark Changes" that I re-cast out of its original edit gives some hint of this controversy. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Django, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Nashua triangular manhole cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nashua triangular manhole cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Revert
Please leave an explanation when you revert someone. T8612 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes ,sorry - hit the Enter key too soon and there's no way to go back and add an Edit Summary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have a question for you, since you seem to have a better grasp of Wikipedia's rules. It was triggered by your revert on Doc Adams. What should be done when two sources referenced in an article contradict each other? I couldn't find a guideline about it.--Gciriani (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's a judgement call by editors, I'd say: If one source seems much more credible, then go with it. If they're equally credible, then mention the discrepancy in the article. Or you can sidestep the issue and be vague, if it's not really important - for example, the Doc Adams article could just call the letter writer "a descendant" and not be specific than that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have a question for you, since you seem to have a better grasp of Wikipedia's rules. It was triggered by your revert on Doc Adams. What should be done when two sources referenced in an article contradict each other? I couldn't find a guideline about it.--Gciriani (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Waltzing Matilda
Question regarding your reversion of my comment on the Waltzing Matilda (talk) page. I’m sure you made wonderful contributions in all of your years here, but I don’t see anything that makes you a god here. You reverted my Talk post and wrote “we don’t need...”. So now you’re the arbiter for all Wikipedians? I commented on a comment related to the content. Two editors disagreed and one relented. I don’t think he should have. I think the post was appropriate and the person opposed to it presented a petulant, not to mention unsupported argument. I gave my reason. If that violated a talk page guideline please quote it for me. Otherwise please re-revert. Roricka (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- " ... all I find is what I’d describe as a petulant little rant (oops ORIGINAL RESEARCH!! I am utterly sorry at having offended!! ..." - Talk pages are for discussing the article, not Twitter-level comments about other comments. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
David, I was travelling to New Zealand when this whole thing came up. I was doing all the editing on a tiny iPhone and didn't realize that you are the guy I was supporting in my original post! I was interested in the same point of confusion that you had raised, and when I read the talk-page article I felt that Mark Marathon had been unreasonable. I won't go into supporting arguments I would have made here, except to say I thought you caved-in too easily. But regardless, why were you, of all people, the guy to revert my supporting comment? I mean, it's just a talk page. You seem to have adopted the same "arbiter of all things" attitude that Marathon had. All that nonsense about banners and poems and the like. If "A Dance to the Music of Time" is obviously not a dance, why would it be okay to make your comment (as Marathon implied) if the title HAD been "The Matilda Waltz"? The objection seemed muddled to me. What's so wrong about stating these things (on a TALK PAGE) in preface to figuring out exactly how to get the point across that you were trying to make? It almost seems to me that so long as a comments is even marginally on-topic, on a talk page, that it's a little inappropriate to revert it instead of simply stating one's objection. In the main article, that's different, I'll agree. But this wasn't the main article. Roricka (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jeez, if you're traveling in New Zealand (a place I long to visit) what are you doing spending time on wikipedia?!?!
- I overreacted to too many snarky pointless online conversations. I'll revert it - but don't go too far into the "just a Talk page" thinking, because they're valuable parts of wikipedia, almost as valuable as the article; if they turn into forum slagheaps then the articles will weaken, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, check out “Waltzing Matilda” is not a Waltz – National Poetry Month day 6 with Sonya Rhen. Sorry I don't have time to create the proper citation, but it's: https://sonyarhen.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/waltzing-matilda-is-not-a-waltz-national-poetry-month-day-6-with-sonya-rhen/ Roricka (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DavidWBrooks. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DavidWBrooks. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Gary Grinberg
So how do I make a Wikipedia page on Gary Grinberg without it being advertising? I'm not Gary btw, I'm just wondering. Do I make another page for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewNumerologist (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here's an explanation for how to create a new article (it doesn't have to be your first!): Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck! Note that you'll need to include some evidence of his notability, showing why he deserves an article - not just having a twitter account or website, because those are way too common.
- Even if he proves notable enough for an article that doesn't mean he will belong in the numerology article - there are many, many, many people who make claims about numerology; they don't get included in that article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alright Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewNumerologist (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Who Are You?
Are you David Brooks the NY Times columnist? If you don't want to answer that, it's alright, I understand. -- Roger Hui (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- No - as my bio says, I'm a newspaper reporter in New Hampshire. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)