User talk:Davidkevin

Archives: /Archive 1

Good job on the Limbaugh page

There is a cadre of Limbaugh supporters (still smarting from the election, apparently) who are simply dishonest editors. Kudos to you for standing up to them. Their responses to you showed them to lacking in reason, substance, and character. Eleemosynary 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on your User Page

Hi, I just reverted your User Page due to vandalism by User:67.189.93.116. You can check your history to see the changes. -- Hdt83 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your courtesy is greatly appreciated. If ever I can do you a service, please let me know. -- Davidkevin 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my user page. I wish these vandals would do something else besides attacking people. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Buck

I fail to see how saying that someone forgot someone else's middle name could be considered libelous. The better complaint would be that it's uncited. For all we know, the editor might have either made it up or misunderstood it. Wahkeenah 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier versions were worse -- I think the original intention was simply a slam against Mr. Buck (see the article history). Either or both reasons are sufficient for its removal. -- Davidkevin 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There are some users (IP addresses mostly, I think) who apparently have a vendetta against Joe Buck for reasons known only to themselves, and that kind of stuff has to be watched. I just don't think this one item is libelous... as if Joe Buck even would care what wikipedia said about him anyway, but that's another story. I think he does just fine as a broadcaster. Wahkeenah 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Heraldry Project

Hey. I see that you list yourself as a beginning speaker of Blazon. Have you thought of joining the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? It's a great place to improve your skills at blazoning. Hop on over and give us a piece of your mind.--Eva ^bd 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Building

I would suggest that you start reading about what triva and popular culture sections are all about before you do nothing but reverting sections that have been tagged. We wikipedians agree on the status quo of using the tags on trivia and popular culture sections, and that they go together - and the Chrysler Building has been once tagged for the overuse of the unnecessary use of popular cultures.

If you think these tags aren't what they are, I would suggest you search around Wikipedia and find articles that tagged the popular culture section with trivia tags and see for yourself before you do any reverts to Chrysler Building.

Lastly, When you revert something, give a good reason. Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here.

121.6.67.23 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this 'we' you speak of, oh one who is too new or too cowardly to have an account with a name? "'We' do not tolerate edit wars here"? If you don't even have a named account, you're not part of any "we wikipedians." ("We pompous twits," now, that you might belong to.)

If you're so illiterate that you can't understand the plain English difference in meanings between "'X' in popular culture" and "Trivia section", then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles.

Finally, you can quit the pompous finger-wagging, I've broken nothing and there is no war.

"Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here."

As Chris Knight said about Kent in Real Genius, "Who talks like that?" -- Davidkevin 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

3RR doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism. And you're welcome.  :) Corvus cornix 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, David. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies over my mistake. When I looked at the edit summary I thought it said "Trivia", in which case the template would have been appropriate. Whether or not it still is, I am unsure because I haven't read the rest of the article. I was on vandal patrol and simply looking for blatant vandalism- and removing a template without an edit summary usually fits under that category. I fear I may be becoming jaded by the sheer amounts of vandalism I see. I do only do it every once in a while but I have found that it does tend to diminish your ability to assume good faith. When you see as many real vandals as I do out on patrol you tend to start wondering how it could be possible that a real person out there could be treating something millions of people spent time on with such malice. It does get to your head. I believe I will stay off vandal patrol for a while until I can work this out with myself and I do want to thank you again for calling me on it. I hope you can forgive me, I would hate to think that we could not work past this like reasonable people and maybe end up wikiaquaintances. : ) L'Aquatique ^talktome 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly forgiven, and I in turn apologize for the delay with this reply, pleading illness.

I should have included a reason for my revert, but I was tired and lax and did not, so I have my own part of the responsibility for this mix-up. I shall endeavor to do better.

Best wishes, Davidkevin 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Pietromonaco

You have any further info on him and the teen club he was involved with in the basement of the Imperial Club located at West Florissant and Goodfellow? Alatari (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the teen club, sorry, no. I was in elementary school during his days as Johnny Rabbitt, and never got further north than Arsenal Street without being in the company of my parents. They and I did once get to visit with him at the station in "Radio Park", though.

Everything else I know about him (and that's not actually that much) would almost certainly be original research as I doubt I could find a verifiable citation for most of it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Davidkevin! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While my paternal grandparents were from Germany, they both came to the United States as infants, and I myself have never been there nor do I speak or read German. I doubt I'm knowledgeable enough to contribute to the project, but I thank you very much for the invitation and wish you well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Factor

Thanks. I'm sorry to say I lost the book during moving house a few years back, but I thought it was an extremely clever fantasy around the Manhattan Project and subsequent events. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

justifying your userboxes left and right

Really, you are "a" historian? I consider myself some thing of "an" historian. Is there room in the wikiverse for both of us? I just don't know. DaronDierkes (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant no offense, I've just always struggled to choose which article to use. You may be interested in the new history working group for the st. louis wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/History. I'm still working on a bunch of loose ends, but I'll be try to work on that page as much as I can off and on. I mean to eventually sort through the articles and figure out exactly which counties they happened in and categorize them. There's a lot to be done. No pressure, just want to keep you informed. DaronDierkes (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification of WP:ANI case against User:Rosencomet

I have opened an WP:ANI discussion on User:Rosencomet's canvassing off-wiki for people to participate in AfDs. Since part of the evidence is your recent post on his talk page, you might want to at least keep an eye on it. Here is the diff and here is a link to the specific section. Please come and participate in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal e-mail

Please stop posting something that was not addressed to you on my talk page. That e-mail was a personal one to friends, Oberon included, and should NEVER have been forwarded to ANYONE without my consent. I have spoken to Oberon about this, and he has apologized. You used the term "tacky"; how much more to keep publicizing a private e-mail, especially in a way that it can be taken out of the context of the private conversations it was a follow-up to and used to damage me. You say you have nothing against me, but I have a hard time believing it. Perhaps if you viewed my contributions over the past six months or even since the arbitration, you'd realize that I am just trying to get more Magical people involved in Wikipedia. Maybe then I wouldn't have to defend these authors so often myself.

Also, my intent is not to promote Starwood. Most of the articles I've written in the past year, like Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Sally Morningstar, Pamela J. Ball, Vivianne Crowley, and many more have never been to an ACE event. Pigman has been scouring Wikipedia of mentions of Starwood and ACE that pre-date the arbitration no matter how appropriate a mention might be judged on a case-by-case basis; I have usually either let it go or responded on talk pages, not revert warred or been aggressive, which is exactly what I was told to do. -- Rosencomet (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That e-mail was posted to four separate YahooGroups -- two connected with Oberon's Grey School of Wizardry and the Grey Council, one connected with the revival of the CAW, and a private groups of friends of mine populated by my personal invitation only. In no way was it described as confidential.

You said I misrepresented what you wrote, I don't think I did. If anything, I minimized the extent of what you were asking others to do. I first tried merely linking to your letter, than copied and pasted it after I found the link would not work, so that other editors could make their own judgements from your own words what your intent was rather than go through my interpretation which you claimed was inaccurate.

As for the letter's context, no, I certainly didn't participate in the larger written exchange of which it was a part, so perhaps I am mistaken about that, but from my admittedly limited point of view it certainly looks to me like a crass attempt to proverbially stuff the ballot box.

I make no claim of perfection, and perhaps in fact I am wholly misinterpreting, and then again perhaps I am not. I can only go by what I have read plus what I (no doubt incompletely) know of your past actions with regard to Wikipedia.

Yes, I really do not have anything against you...but it does distress me that you seem unable to grok that some of what you do in the context of Wikipedia is seriously inappropriate. I myself have a hard head and have made similar faux-pas from time to time and been taken to task for them, sometimes with kindness and sometimes with malice, so it distresses me to see someone who I know to be an otherwise righteous person subject himself to the same. I really am trying to help you in my less-than-perfect way. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet

Was a decision made with regard to Rosencomet's AN/I, or did it simply scroll off again? Pigman put it back at least once, but I don't want to be presumptious, especially as I just want him to act differently, not get blocked, which is where it looked like things were going the last time I looked. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it just went stale. He is not blocked but has no contributions in the last couple days. I think I would like to try to work with him, since he seems to trust me. I will approach him about that soon. - Revolving Bugbear 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have hopes for your working with him. Much obliged. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DC Fontana

If you have a reliable source for DC Fontana's involvement with the Society for Creative Anachronism, pls try to give one. I don't know much about her personal life sadly.

On Star Trek, I liked the original show and the first 2 sequels but I'm afraid it started to lose a lot of gas after the end of ST DS9 and the departure of Ronald D. Moore. ST Voyager and ST Ent was really bland in my subjective view. It seems as if most sci-fi fans today are mostly engaged with BSG which is made in Vancouver, Canada close to where I live. Some fans are even excited about 'Caprica' though I don't know much about it. I don't think Star Trek has a bright future with CBS which basically shut down the startrek.com site last December. CBS is simply slashing all their online program divisions and firing their online staffers to the bone. If CBS' Evening show couldn't catch fire with superstar anchor Katie Couric, what chance does a new movie or sequel of Star Trek have with them, I wonder? Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That she was a kingdom officer (Mistress of the Lists) was in the Caid kingdom newsletter, the title of which I don't remember, back in the early '80s. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK. That's good enough. A source would have helped but we don't always remember to footnote our sources when we type in articles. BTW, do you think Star Trek has a chance for a rebirth under CBS? You must have some views here. Personally, I am really doubtful...sadly. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter was The Crown Prints. // Possibly, as long as Les Moonves isn't involved in making the decision. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Go ahead. More power to you and all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you're gonna do it, do it soon. I've got classes tomorrow so I've got to get to bed at a reasonable hour :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

=== Khan Noonien Singh ===

User:David_Fuchs has apparently taken ownership of the article in violation of WP:OWN. He and User:Juliancolton claim there is consensus to ignore validly sourced references from Star Trek: Enterprise, but the article talk page shows no discussion, much less consensus. Mr. Fuchs so far has taken an apparent attitude to the effect of "I'm an admin, you can't stop me, and you're a troll for opposing me." Please, objective admins look at this and prevent this abuse. Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, David. I hope you realize that you're on the verge of violating WP:3RR. When I added the Enterprise info to the article, it was not my intention to start an edit war. I agree that there's no evidence of a previous consensus on the article's talk page; but that's not an argument for avoiding the talk page yourself. Let's discuss it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not avoiding it, and have ceased editing at my limit of three. (There's only one of me and two sitting on the article to overwhelme any changes I make. I decline to be provoked into a 3RR violation.)

I'd be pleased to have that discussion there, and look forward to it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to remind you that it's possible to edit war without violating 3RR. As Wikipedia:Edit war says, "The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits." To my eye, the reversions on Khan Noonien Singh (from both sides) were an edit war, even though you stayed on the right side of 3RR. It's not a big deal — but it might have been more productive to go to the talk page before AN/I. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I suspect not probably. As for the 3RR rule, one can wish it weren't compromised by weasel wording. "Three is the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three." -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Five is right out. See you at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward Asner

I have no issue with your position that Pournelle and his political viewpoint are such that a notable interaction with Asner would be interesting and perhaps worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, the fact that Pournelle thinks Asner is "a good neighbor" is trivial. If Pournelle agreed to serve on a board with Asner despite intense political differences, or if Pournelle made public statements or testimony on behalf of Asner's right to hold opinions Pournelle might personally disagree with, it would be worthy of note (though arguably more in a Pournelle article than an Asner one). But the opinion that Asner is "a good neighbor" is just too trivial. It doesn't significantly effect a reader's opinion of or insight into either Pournelle or Asner. If the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan said that Jesse Jackson was a "good neighbor," it wouldn't be a significant statement. If he said, "Jackson may be a n**** but I like him and play pool with him twice a week," that would be noteworthy. It's the "good neighbor" reference I find trivial. Shall we put it to the basic Wikipedia test -- consensus? Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Skarl the drummer

He says he's willing to abide by Third Opinion if you are willing to go there with him. None of my business - just trying to keep things calm. Peridon (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm, don't worry about that. I don't believe Skarl further than I can throw him, but if consensus is that Third Opinion is the next step, fine with me. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your move. -- Skarl 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I am expecting you to make the entry at Third Opinion. If you'd rather I do it, then please let me know. -- Skarl 21:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing the entry when you posted these. It's done. If you dislike the wording, feel free to add to it how you see things, but please do not delete my wording. Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's mostly ok. It could use links to the various discussions, but I'm assuming whoever reviews it will look into that. -- Skarl 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

old times

Have you four names? Rowan says hi and hopes you are well. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how I missed this before? Anyway, sorry for the delay in answering, and yes, I have four names. I hope both you and Rowan are well as well. I'm married, and our sons just turned 18 and 15. I'd be pleased to further converse in a more private manner if you or she would like. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Louis Children's Hospital

Can't Put It In the Article, but True Anyway

I just want to mention that in my observation and experience every good word about this hospital in the article is true.

All praise to the Emergency Department and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in particular, which saved my younger son's life as a toddler when he had a systemic streptococcus infection. Without their care his physician estimated he would have died the next day. It's been over a decade, and he's tall and healthy and strong as the proverbial bull.

I can never thank them enough. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Real Genius

It's a plot summary. The thing about broken glass is (while factually correct) irrelevent to the plot synopsis.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional spacecraft

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fictional spacecraft. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spacecraft. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tony Attwood

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tony Attwood. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Attwood. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony Attwood is a cultural bigot? I think what is bigoted is linking the Asperger's Syndrome page to psychopathy, as if Albert Einstein is somehow on the same page as Jack the Ripper! I have Asperger's Syndrome and had read Tony's book. It provides an accurate portrait (though of course there may be errors) of the condition. It describes downsides, such as stereotypy and hypersensitivity, but puts together a coherent picture of the talents people with the syndrome have. And oh, it mentions Temple Grandin. Bill Gates may had Asperger's, perhaps with ADHD, but I would vouch that he is no psychopath. He may have occasionally lost his temper, but that's about it. Although he got in trouble with antitrust law by the time he was a billionaire, but I have never heard of him threatening to kill anyone or, for that matter, sponsoring oppressive regimes. Unless you count outsourcing. In fact Gates did a lot of philantropy and I would hope his political involvement would do more for less fortunate people/nations than that of his namesake the Secretary of Defense. Enough evaluating. See for yourself which is the elephant and which the poacher. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZIpper