User talk:David spector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page–my talk page–as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Thank you!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Click here to watch this page.


Bacterophages[edit]

is it true that bacteriophage T2 affects other bacterias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.127.211 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "bacteriophage" means "bacterium eater", but they don't actually eat bacteria. Bacteriophages are viruses that replicate by injecting their genetic contents into a bacterium. Their DNA takes over the genetic mechanisms of the bacterium, replicating new virus bodies until the bacterium is destroyed and bursts open. David Spector (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Seneca (cigarette)[edit]

I can't understand (from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) what an ordinary editor (as opposed to an administrator) should do to request a Speedy deletion of Seneca (cigarette) by reason A7. David Spector (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the CSD page - the A7 section at the end there is a bullet and a list of templates, decide on the appropriate one. Go to the article, select edit and add the template at the top of the page like {{db-a7}} - don't forget the double braces each end. Click save. The new boxed notice will show a string of text to copy and paste onto the original authors talk page.
OR enable Twinkle in the Gadgets section of your preferences. Then you get a extra menu item - CSD - it adds the tag to the article and adds the right tag to the correct talk page. Much easier.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Done. The original author has no user or talk page. David Spector (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page comments[edit]

Hi David, Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[1] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies. If you feel that a particular editor's behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policy then I suggest that you start a thread at WP:AE or WP:ANI as these are the appropriate places for discussions of editor behavior. Thanks for your careful consideration in this matter. -- KeithbobTalk 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keithbob, I appreciate your concerned comments, however they do not seem to me to be relevant.
First, since I am not interested in Wikilawyering myself, I cannot take your advice to complain about any particular editor's behavior as in violation of policies. Such a complaint, accompanied by a list of edit differences, is just the sort of time wastage that, although frequent at WP, does not interest me. I like actual article editing.
Second, I do not believe that any specific editors have shown clear violations of WP policies. If they had, they would already be under attack by the others. I'm talking about clear trends that turn up on a group level (these aren't individual POVs, but distinct and unique sides in a set if controversies).
Third, the observations I'm making are not complaints, in the sense you mean them. My complaint is that the TM articles are written as exposes of controversy instead of sources of information. If someone really wants to develop their own judgement of the value of TM, they would find the task difficult based on what's currently here.
Fourth, as part of my explanation of why the articles are so bad, I've explained the reality, which may not be obvious to the first-time visitor: the same editors have been present here for years, and they have a pattern of "welcoming" then giving advice to new editors (this approaches but does not reach OWN). I've explained that these long-term editors fall into two consistent groups: a pro- group and an anti- group.
Fifth, these are group descriptions, not those of individuals. If you would like to accuse any individuals of violations, don't ask me to to do it. Be BOLD and do it yourself. I stand behind my proposal fully, and I hope someone will come along and see the value in it.
Sixth, I disagree most definitely that my proposal is "not helpful to progress on WP." Hiding the truth is never helpful, in any area of human life. Telling the truth about the dysfunctional editing environment at the TM articles, as I have done, may be the first step toward finding a way to rewrite these articles to make them as readable and genuinely informative as certain other controversial articles at WP. Accepting the status quo as you seem to be recommending deserves this label you are putting on me: "not helpful to progress on WP." You have learned well from others here that you can frequently win arguments at WP or get your way by using WP policies as weapons with which to make threats. Regardless of whether this strategy works or not, I do not consider it kind to others, supportive of others, or in the best interest of writing good articles. David Spector (user/talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi David, Thanks for your reply, but I did not say: "[your] proposal is not helpful to progress on WP". What I said (above) was: "Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[2] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies." I made no comment about your proposal. I am speaking strictly about behavior. You may disregard my post if you like, but please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I don't understand what distinction you are making. Is it possible that you could address my proposal instead of your interpretation that I'm making complaints? David Spector (user/talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're unable to understand that its possible to discuss content issues on the talk page without "accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics". I would suggest taking a break and thinking it over. Also, I have never said you were "making complaints". What I said was:"Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[3] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies." This repeated mis-characterization of my statements is a concern. As for your proposal, I've already given you feedback (twice) on the TM talk page and offered specific suggestions as to how you might proceed. Maybe you should take time to read those again too, when you have a chance. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is possible to use Talk pages in other ways. I do that all the time. But the TM pages are different from most in that the articles are marked by an almost unreadable fluctuation between pro-TM and anti-TM points of view. That is why I worded my proposal the way I did, emphasizing the history and reality of the editing environment there.
You say, "I've already given you feedback (twice)..." But this feedback did not include an "agree" or "disagree", with reasons. Instead, it focused on my statements concerning the unproductive editing environment at these articles.
I assume that you agree with me that our goal here is to create high-quality articles. I assume that you are not attacking me (I can't see that you would have any motivation to do so). So it is of greatest concern to me that you appear to focus on WP policy rather than either my proposal or the readability of the articles in general.
My greatest concern is that you seem to be upset about something in particular, repeating yourself and seeming to be trying to warn me about something, asking me to reread what you've written. For some reason, though, I'm not understanding your point. Please don't get impatient with me. Please explain what you mean using other words, so that I can understand your warning and see clearly how it contributes to this discussion and to the improvement of the article. David Spector (user/talk) 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
My greatest concern is that you seem to be upset that I am giving you a friendly heads up that your talk page activities may be in violation of discretionary sanctions. Since you have already received a formal warning at WP:AE for similar behavior [4] I thought you might appreciate this kind an alert. But instead you have choosen to twist my words and claim I'm saying something I'm not. That's why I have quoted my prior posts because they are very clear and explicit and include diffs. You are an intelligent man and you have the ability to understand them. If you need further information please see TM ArbCom and WP:AGF and WP:TALK.
I have addressed your proposal and given a detailed response on two occasions on the TM talk page. Your response to my first post included the accusation "Your reply is just another example of the pervasive habit of wikilawyering." My second response I placed in a special section heading, two days ago, to encourage other editors to also give their comments. In addition, I expressed my opinions on your proposal, cited a Wiki essay, and gave specific suggestions for steps you could take to obtain further input from other editors and gain consensus. Please don't make me out to be the bad guy as, so far, I am the only one who has responded to you on the talk page. And yes, our goals are the same: to create and maintain high-quality articles on Wikipedia and I'm sure we can work together to achieve that goal. Cheers! -- KeithbobTalk 13:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have been so dense. You really are completely ignoring my proposal that we rewrite the articles, aren't you? All you are doing is giving me a friendly warning, in case I myself may be violating WP policies. Please accept my apology for trying to force you to respond to the proposal itself. Of course, you are free to do as you like, and I have no right to put any words in your mouth. Are we okay now? I will also reply at the TM talk page. Thanks for your concern. David Spector (user/talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beached dolphins[edit]

A tag has been placed on Beached dolphins, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Speedy delete contest button.svg which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page Beached dolphins, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

pigs on lnh[edit]

hy david, can we talk about people running wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.12.81 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you like. Send me an email through WP. If that doesn't work, you can write here. Sign your postings by ending them with four tildes. What is "lnh"? David Spector (user/talk) 13:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear David,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Thank you, I accept. Editing here is usually a fulfilling and enjoyable activity. Sometimes, it can be frustrating, as the guidelines require certain kinds of published sources when sometimes there are none such to be had on apparently notable topics. Another reason for frustration is the difficulty of dealing with opinion conflicts between editors. Rarely, editing can be traumatic--it can require a thick skin--many sensitive folk have left WP when such frustrations reached overwhelming proportions. David Spector (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New User Template[edit]

Logo MT.jpg
This user is a member of the
Wiki Project on Transcendental Meditation.

Hi, I am notifying all editors who are listed as participants at the Transcendental Meditation project page to let them know they may add this newly created project user template (see image at left) to their user page by adding the following code: {{User WPTranscendental Meditation}} to their page, if they so desire. Thanks! -- KeithbobTalk 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams Talk Page[edit]

Hello. As an individual who's contributed to the talk page here in previous discussions, I would like to request your participation in two current discussions, Whitney Houston 2003 Interview and Kim on Wendy Williams & Rapper Biggie Smalls. Your contributions, which are not contingent upon taking any particular side, would be appreciated. Silver Buizel (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the invitation. David Spector (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to each of the discussions. Your feedback allowed the discussion to progress in a more cohesive manner and helped establish a sense of consensus. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams Talk Page II[edit]

Hello. As an individual who's contributed to the discussion of this talk page, I would like to request your participation in several ongoing discussions: Nicole Spence Section, Williams & Rachel Crow, Williams and Janet Hubert feud, Williams and Beyoncé Knowles, Adorn by Wendy Williams section and "In Popular Culture" Section. Your contributions, which are not contingent upon taking any particular side, would be appreciated. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but as my time is currently limited and the topic of this article is probably near the very bottom of what qualifies to appear in WP, I must regretfully deny your invitation. David Spector (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No more hunting for Helen[edit]

Voila: Helen Hunt (hair stylist). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! What a great article, thanks! David Spector (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Downwind[edit]

Hi, Could you give me a link to the explanation that was in Wikipedia about how it is possible to sail faster than the wind when going downwind? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The article itself contains one explanation. The following is from my new policy proposal, pointing to another explanation on its Talk page:
"An example is Sailing faster than the wind, where section "BOLD EDIT NOTICE" of its Talk page presents an excellent explanation (the analogy of a geared transmission)..."
David Spector (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Young (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop, Look and Listen[edit]

Hi. If that other film is notable, then please create an article for it, instead of adding pointless info to another article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, David Spector (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The new article is done: Stop Look and Listen (film). Your help in locating any errors would be appreciated. David Spector (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Leap Motion page[edit]

Hey David, my name is Alex Colgan and I’m the head writer at Leap Motion. I saw that you made some edits to the Leap Motion page last year, and was wondering whether you'd be interested in helping to expand it.

I’m fully on board with Wikipedia’s contributions guidelines, including those related to conflict of interest. This means that I won’t make any direct edits to the page. Instead, I'd like to suggest changes and contribute references as needed, so that impartial Wikipedians can make contributions that will improve the article while maintaining NPOV ^_^

Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion 15:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex, I see that you have asked me and Gandydancer to be fronts for feeding your edits into Wikipedia. You say, "I’m fully on board with Wikipedia’s contributions guidelines." Your request is not in compliance with WP policy. All I can say is that I will not cooperate, and I advise you not to try to get promotional material into Wikipedia through other editors or methods. WP editors are very smart, and will discover and promptly remove any such edits as they find them. WP is dedicated to providing objective and reliable knowledge. It will generally accept statements that are backed up by reliable, third-party sources such as reviews in magazines. I realize that as an employee of Leap Motion, you have unique knowledge about your company and its products, but, unfortunately for your company, WP only provides one channel for you to contribute such knowledge: to tell it to independent and trustworthy journalists in a position to check any facts you provide, who will then decide to publish the information in public. Further information is available at WP:RS. A final note: "single-use" accounts like this, concerned with only one article, are prohibited. I hope this information helps. PS - I wish Leap Motion luck; its technology is clever. But don't waste your time trying to use WP for publicity. It's against policy. David Spector (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to get anyone to be a "front" for feeding edits into Wikipedia, and I'm sorry that my original message has led to that impression. When I say "suggest changes," I do mean pointing to third-party materials and saying "this might be something that ought to be included." For instance, there has been fairly extensive media coverage of tech startup MotionSavvy [1] [2], which might merit a sentence in the "Developer Community" section. Ditto for the beta we announced earlier this year [3]. Conversely, I might point out something that ought to be cut, such as the CNET clause calling out a quote that isn't there.
Based on my reading into the COI, SPA, and Advocacy pages, I'm following policy by openly disclosing my affiliation, declining to make any direct edits, and offering to provide references in the form of third-party knowledge. I've principally based my disclosure on the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, which highlights CanalPark's disclosure as positive practice. (If there's something I'm missing, I hope you'll assume good faith rather than malice on my part.) At the very least, I don't think it's biased of me to say that there are significant quality issues on the page as it stands. — Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion, 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Alex, Thank you for your additional information and clarification. I agree that you are pursuing the correct course in your disclosures and disclaimers here.
The primary input to Wikipedia is third-party public and reliable sources. Our coverage of companies is not meant to be complete; there are other sources of information on the Web that should be used for in-depth information about commercial entities. Just as a WP editor is not allowed to be single-purpose (parked on one article, for example), I am certain that editors are not supposed to have any sort of 'favored status' with respect to a commercial entity. I apologize if this and other restrictions may not be obvious in a first reading of WP policy, and I will clarify that I am a general WP editor who is most definitely not interested in the 'favored status' relationship you are proposing. I am an occasional volunteer here with other responsibilities in life and cannot accept the responsibility to work with you as you proposed, even if this were in line with WP policy and goals, which it most definitely is not, in my opinion. WP may not be used to further external commercial goals, such as the posting of press releases or other marketing material. I state that even if that is not what you intend to do, only because it seems and feels that way to me. I wish you the best of luck. David Spector (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
David, thanks for your candour and well-wishes. I feel that there's been an assumption of bad faith here, which is regrettable. I reached out to you after seeing that you'd previously edited the page because I thought you might be interested in returning to it, not to confer any kind of special status or impugn your integrity as an editor. My aim is to point out errors and omissions, based on reliable third-party sources, openly on the Talk page to be discussed and edited (and no doubt sometimes rejected) by the community at large; and it seemed like a good idea to say hello. All the best, — Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion, 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
At no time did I think you were guilty of the slightest bad faith. I've stated all my thoughts about this matter in my comments and omitted nothing. David Spector (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)