User talk:Adavidb/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Missouri S&T

That was a great work. You fixed almost all the broken ones - Sasikiran (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of the public releases required some searching for their current URLs, and I think they're all up-to-date now. Some links to non-S&T web sites toward the end of the article are still broken, however. —ADavidB 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to look into it. - Sasikiran (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a broken link.. It seems all the links are now active - Sasikiran (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit from a couple weeks ago? For Missouri S&T, the male to female ratio is relevant reference information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms586 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such info itself is relevant, though the "Infobox university" template, where you put the info, doesn't support the inclusion of male/female ratios and thus won't display it in the article. That's why the edit was undone, and it's the reason I put in the edit summary. Also, for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, such info should be verifiable. Even when added where it will be displayed, a reliable source is needed for the info, and should be included as a source citation. An example would be to add something like this after it: <ref>http://www.someplace.com/some-supporting-address.html</ref> Thanks —ADavidB 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unusual Side Effect

Thanks for taking care of the unusual side effect edit on the Churches of Christ article. I'm using a Greasemonkey script which blocks vulgar words when using Firefox. The only problem is that Assessment will be changed to Bottomssment automatically. --Ichabod (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the TR edit

I was QUITE fortunate to find the actual Corrine Roosevelt passage that Edmund Morris merly quoted in a passing way after his comments about TR as a wounded lion. Two summers ago, I had the honor of hearing Edmund Morris speak about that passage (before I understood his actual source) out in Medora, ND, when the a private rancher handed over some 5000 acres of the former Elk Horn Ranch to the National Park Service. I was there attending a symposium on TR at Dickinson State University where I had also set up a little information booth for the Theodore Roosevelt Association of which I'm a member. The way Morris said that "too cold to throb" or "too dead to throb" or however he said really caught my attention and I wanted to learn out just where he got that phrase from. So I think this is kind of Wikipedia at its best. Our TR article is truely shaping up to be literally one of the "best" articles on TR ever written and I'm 100% serious about this. We've put factual information into this article found NO where else except deeply embedded in books by both fans (Edumund Morris) as well as critics (Henry Pringle and John Morton Blum). I've been slowly but surely adding negative/critical comments, one by one, because these give a better balance to the article but are TOUGH to find because TR really IS an outstanding person. Nevertheless he DID screw up occasionally, and had some really extreme views on some issues and his whole attempt to unseat Taft, was, in hindsight (and against the advice of even his daughter Alice) an ego-driven and ultimately self-destructive act that did nothing but get that racist dreamer academic, Wilson elected who took us into World War I totally UN-prepared ( the dang FRENCH had to train our volunteer army for a YEAR IN FRANCE before they could even go into action against the Germans). The Progressive Party drove OUT all the so called progressives and moderates from the Republican party making it MORE right wing and reactionary (stand pat, as TR would have called it) too. Also, his loss led DIRECTLY to his DISASTEROUS and nearly FATAL South American trip that cut his life SHORT by at least 10 years by his OWN admission. He as forever weakened by tropical diseases from that trip. Had he merely let Taft BEAT Wilson, he could have been the Republican candidate in 1914 and quite possibly PREVENTED WW-1 because the Kaisar was both awe struck and TERRIFIED of TR's energy, intellect and willingness to STAND for something. Many superficial students of TR miss a LOT of these items. Of course it would be POV to try to GUESS what MIGHT have happened. But the TR article can go a long way toward presenting a uniquely balanced and even in-depth look at this remarkable person. I'm privelged to be friend of 6 of TR's direct decendents via the Theodore Roosevelt Association and these same people all point to WIKIPEDIA as one of the BEST overall articles on TR in the English language - period, which is quite a tribute to THOUSANDS of hours of work on the part of the many talented historians, writers and editors who have contributed to this article. I see whole passages from the Wikipedia article nearly "lifted" in mainstream articles on TR - Time Magazine's issue on TR 2 years ago simply re-wrote entire paragraphs from wikipedia. I know this because I wrote some of those same paragraphs, myself and had NEVER seen them phrased the same place in ANY other source. Quite a tribute to our work. Thanks for all your work to that contributes to make the Wikipedia article on TR the finest single piece in print in the English language - something it is quickly and steadily moving toward being. PS. I could email you the video of Morris comment that I mentioned. I took it, myself and you won't find it anywhere else. Let me know if your're interested. I ought to post it on Wikimedia, actually. PSS - I also started the article on Tweed Roosevelt, TR's great grandson via TR's son, Archie, and quite an authority on TR, himself and a member of the executive committee of the Theodore Roosevelt Association. SimonATL (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Precious Roy / Merriweather

Can you believe those edits? Wow, talk about boring writing and cutting something down to the bare bone. Ironic considering the same person was complaining of it being just a list of facts. Oh well I'm not going to fight this individual, just a shame though. Whole section could be vastly improved but this editor has scared me off from making any new edits. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Roy's talk page has a banner about the account being a sock puppet and no longer actively used. I don't consider Roy's edits as helping the article, though will probably let them stand as well. You still have my appreciation for changing the list creatively into a narrative paragraph and I encourage you to continue editing, even if only elsewhere. —ADavidB 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial Scrubbing at Steele

There's been a new development here on the Michael S. Steele article you commented on earlier this month. Not only is the racial context being erased, but now, the erasures are disguised as "m" (minor) edits. I don't know what to do next to prevent what seems to be well-meant but has the same effect as vandalism. —LisaSmall ^T/C 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Steele middle name

Thanks for adding a citation for Steele's middle name. I added Stephen after looking at the same page you referenced, but I wasn't sure how to add a citation for it. Conrad (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Like Me: Life After Death

Wikipedia's policy on original research states that "[p]rimary sources are [...] artistic and fictional works such as [...] motion pictures." The film is a primary source for the Wikipedia article about it. It also states that "[a] primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims [...] verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." To use a simplistic analogy, one wouldn't need a secondary source to state that Romeo and Juliet die in their eponymous play, as such is a descriptive claim about that work of fiction which is verifiable by anyone reading the play. Similarly, the plot summary for the film is comprised of descriptive claims about the primary source (the film, the work of fiction itself), claims which are verifiable by anyone, and in line with the above policies, the primary source itself is acceptable, without secondary sources, since the summary is comprised of descriptive claims and not arguable interpretation. However, your tagging was correct in and of that the plot summary previously offered no references documenting that primary source (the film). It now does. I trust that, as the plot summary section of the article is now in line with Wikipedia's original research and reliable sources policies, this is satisfactory to you. Yfcuwviiw (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks —ADavidB 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BD template substitutions

Thanks, I noticed it. It's being fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Club Penguin white puffle

Hey, why do you erase the white puffle info?→RatónBat→ 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Those edits have been undone because there's no provided source to support the information. I've included links to what is needed in my edit summaries. —ADavidB 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Revolution

Thanks for correcting my grammatical errors.JaMikePA (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)