User talk:DavidWBrooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to leave a new message.


User talk: DavidWBrooks/2003 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2004 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2005 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2006 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2007 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2008 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2009 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2010 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2011 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2012 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2013 archive


New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18[edit]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Concurrency (road)[edit]

Thank you for removing the tags. I removed the one part, and I thought it was best to let someone else decide to remove the rest. As for the blank section, I had intended to make some updates to the article, but fell into a time constraint. However, I've now had the opportunity to work on the article, and I've completely reorganized the article, placing a number of sections as sub-sections under "Overview." I think the way I restructured the article helps further eliminate the concern of the article's POV.

Best wishes! --hmich176 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March[edit]

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page.
Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

Machu Picchu and Aliens[edit]

Why did you remove some of the info regarding Machu Picchu and aliens? Wikipedia should display all beliefs regarding the origins of Machu Picchu. Especially, since there is a significant population in Peru that believes this. I'm not saying there beliefs are correct, but their views should be offered up to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoctorRobert (talkcontribs) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you can't google search the Dalai Lama's comments about Machu Picchu doesn't mean its not true. Here read this seperate journal article...it states clearly that the Dalai Lama has made this endorsement. http://books.google.ca/books?id=bBHrWwtr_pYC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=dalai+lama+machu+picchu&source=bl&ots=JTLTuBuZMY&sig=2it8Fzq-A5UFh22a7MHRYfIuGn8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CFgsU6PmII-MyAGduYGgDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dalai%20lama%20machu%20picchu&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoctorRobert (talkcontribs) 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You also deleted the whole paragraph, not just the part that mentions the Dalai Lama. There was a lot of good stuff on mysticism in there. I encourage you to read these articles. The articles portray the beliefs of a prominent group in Peru. This doesn't mean that the beliefs are correct. I feel that Wikipedia should display these relevant beliefs about the origins of Machu Picchu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoctorRobert (talkcontribs) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mapparium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • alar.html "Mapparium anniversary celebrated"], The Christian Science Monitor. September 28, 2005.]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited![edit]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.

We hope to see you there!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Edit-a-thon invite[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England
Wikimania 2012 portrait 102 by ragesoss, 2012-07-13.JPG

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:

We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time.

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Stephane Grappelli[edit]

Hello, DW. I found out, after I wished you "Happy Trails" on the Grappelli talk page, that you are an admin. This is a happy surprise as, in my experience, admins tend to either excuse Roscelese's POV-pushing behavior or actively aid and abet it. Thank you for jumping in there and slowing down "the agenda", even if only momentarily (we swim against the tide). If I were making the rules, I would require written self-identification before putting anyone in a "sexual preference" category, or, the considered, published (in a biography of the subject person) opinion of an experienced academic biographer having no known connection with "the agenda". As it stands now, all it takes to label someone is the printed gossip of his "friends", at which point it becomes what Roscelese calls "common knowledge". Oh, well. Water under the bridge. Happy trails! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor and sock needs blocking[edit]

This shouldn't take more than a few minutes of your time. It's an easy decision. Here are some links to look at:

Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Since no block has been forthcoming, even in the face of blatant sockpuppetry, the editor has returned with a vengeance and is creating more disruption. We're looking at severe cases of IDHT, tendentiousness, ownership, POV pushing, and lack of competence.
Wikipedia needs protection from this editor. We have more important things to do with our time. This is the type of thing which drives good editors away. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit[edit]

I am not sure why you took such a heavy handed approach to reverting my edit today to Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. You state in the edit summary that you found the lead harder to read (to which I disagree), but instead of taking the time to fix it to something you could accept, you reverted the whole re-write, which I had spent a couple of hours on earlier this week, but sat on until the contentious editing passed.

Your revert removed several improvements I made to the article with my edit, including:

1) additional, fact correcting referencing per RS (the hoax was NOT created on the web);
2) chronological fixes to the "History" subsection per WMoS;
3) addition of the subsection, "Concept" explaining the underpinnings of the hoax, and removing that unique content away from the lede to where it belongs: in the actual body of the article (for instance, that regarding the material data sheet), as the lead is to be a summary of the article body per Lead;
4) the incorporation of the four "See also" links directly into the body of the article per See also section and WMoS;
5) the re-captioning of the pictures and graphics into the Scope of the article (and, for instance, away from the chemical composition, which is apparently confusing to some);
6) other cosmetic; grammar; and spelling errors that I fixed (such as webcite → website) per Copy edit.

I honestly think you threw the baby out with the bathwater here. I certainly don't want to edit-war over this article, as I've already spent way too much effort on it and its talk page this week. I will leave it to you to make any further corrections, as I don't really have the time right now due to the workload of my career and necessary travel in the coming weeks (which, by the way, includes the copy editing of technical written materials). I hope you can see where I am coming from and find some middle ground and at least partially add back some of my article improving changes. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I favor restoring GenQuest's version and editing it. It's better than the previous version. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Maybe my patience with this article has been frayed to the point that I didn't read the edits closely enough, but the new lede was, IMHO, pretty muddled and unnecessarily complicated, and bits of the old lede were scattered here and there and difficult to find with such a sweeping edit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)