Jump to content

User talk:David D.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobbybirch (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 15 January 2008 (→Replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

Template:UWAYOR
You may here

Replies

Just came to tell you I replied to your question. Reply


Hey this is Bobby Birch, and Ive already speoken with "Inspector 34" or whatever he calls himself, and please stop deleting my material! I am serious. Just stop. Its an article on an Alaskan school! Give me a break, it means nothing to you.

Disruptive user info

Response here

Article on Fubra

Hi David,

Regarding this article that you have moved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmaunders/Fubra

I created the Fubra Limited article as I noticed there were some other existing pages on wikipedia about sites we (Fubra) own, and so I thought it would make sense to create a page about our company and link these articles in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Price_Crash

I thought it would be useful to readers to be able to follow the link where our name was mentioned to get some background information on us.

I have read the relevant wikipedia policies but I still think the creation of a page on Fubra by me is justified.

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable.

  • Although it was written about a company I am involved with, I think I have written the article from a neutral point of view.
  • I have tried to be "encyclopedic" in the sense that I have writtnm about Fubra as broadly as possible, but I must stress that it is very much a work in progress.
  • The majority of the facts are 3rd party verifiable, but certain historical details are only known to Brendan and myself personally (such as how we came up with the idea for a particular site). I included these details as I thought they made the article more interesting, and I have seen similar references in other wikipedia articles permitted.

I am happy to go through the article and make sure that any Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has a reliable source, as per the Wikipedia policies.

Sources

More on the Fubra article - proof reading

Hi David, I have added in some references. Could you have a look over what I have done so far and offer your opinion on which specific bits you would keep and which bits you removed. Thanks in advance! Paul

Re:Copyvio of Battle of Marion

Give me some time, please. Can you remove the notice?

Redmarkviolinist (talk)Editor Review 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, only 1.5 sections had plagiarized content in them. So do I still have to do a temp. page? Or can I just redo those sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmarkviolinist (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sooooo much for saving that on a temp page. ---Redmarkviolinist (talk)Editor Review 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please move it as long as you get my recent purging. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do a B-class article checklist for it? I think it is a B-class, but I'm not sure. Ty --Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates

Hi David,

See Wikipedia:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking for information on why we link dates. --Slashme (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page it says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " So why is it advantageous to link these access dates? It gives the impression there is something useful at the other end, like a way back archive link or such. It just wastes peoples time linking to a page that is not informative. David D. (Talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I pointed to that article is that it summarises the reasons for linking dates, including the fact that linked dates are formatted according to user preferences. YMMV. --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the month is spelled it does not matter which order the days months and years are in. Or am I missing something here? David D. (Talk) 09:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning of user:124.182.59.28

Hi. I think your recent warning to this IP was a bit harsh, as it was the first message he recieved and you wrote 'Quit the vandalism please. This is your only warning' I've also noticed you have done it to another user as well, user: 122.109.234.37‎ . Try to calm down a bit, because what you have been saying is the equivelent of a level 4 warning. Also, you can find a list of warning templates here so you don't have to write them out longhand.

thanks, cf38talk 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:vandalism

Well, I see what you mean but I think the link you gave me was no-way a level 4 warning unless the vandal had been warned before. If it was his first warning, I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}}. Also, I reccommend copying and pasting the warning templates from here to save time. If you have the Firefox browser, you could use a program called Twinkle. I use it, and I can make about 30 edits a minuite! It has an automatic system which allows you to warn, revert, tag and report in seconds! I reccommend it.

thanks, cf38talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a description of it from it's Page:

Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions but I don't go after vandal enough to warrant a tool, I just warn when they hit things on my watch list. Did you see the three IP's vandalizing together? That level four was for cumulative edits. I'm not too keen on the templates so I tend not to use them, they make it look like a robot is warning you. David D. (Talk) 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]













Thanks

Yes, I’m mired in Christmas dinner leftovers at the computer here. :) I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

David, would you like to join in on the Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. At present our feedback is productive; however, there has been none in attendance that seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. Join in ... I have become use to the abuse; especially if it will lead to a better article. [[1]]. I'm sure you don't remember; but you are the one that advised me to open an account --- over a year ago---- so it is your fault that I spent way to much of my life on the article in the first place! The evidence is the top of my discussion page. Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sports Results

Hi there! I just thought I'll let you know, I have joined your WikiProject Sports Results. I'll try to help you as much as I can and have been already contributing to swimming results from last year's Aquatic championships and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've also taken the libery to restucture your participants list and create a userbox for the project.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Sports Results.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oveview

David, I think it disappeared as a consequence of spacing and formating so time ago. The concern was over clutter if I remember. I don't recall any strong discussion one way or another on the issue. The template seems to be basically been displaced by the "portal" template. I would rather have the biology portal at the bottom and the summary in its place in that it did a good job and was never a source of criticism. I think you would get support for its return. Anything to do with format or spacing fall out of my jurisdiction / skills! I think there is an "experiment page" somewhere in which I played a little with editing it. I'll see if I can find it.--Random Replicator (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re: I hope.....

.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Perhaps I should have just gone ahead and done that myself, even. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prions

I didn't say they weren't, merely that the reference was off-topic! The section in question didn't mention prions, and appeared to be entirely about trans-generational methylation/chromatin effects.

Chees, Joe D (t) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, i was just going from your edit summary that I saw pop up. David D. (Talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

(Sigh) I new it was going in that direction; there is plenty of blame to share here. I must rethink the use of humor; no damn body gets my jokes. Will this hurt us?--Random Replicator (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, at least I'd hope it would be viewed as a minor disagreement rather than a deal breaker. The written word is a mine field when trying to resolve a dispute. I usually try to tread very carefully or leave before i say something too bad, usually someone breaks down before i do which is the only reason i might seem to avoid similar arguments. In my experience any alienation will make compromise impossible give an inch or two and take mile seems to work more often than not. I understand it's hard to give anything sometimes but it's the only way to gain any trust, assuming the other editor is genuinely trying to improve the article, rather than POV pushers. In this case I see no reason to assume it was not a genuine attempt to improve the article, so its a shame it ended that way. David D. (Talk) 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks for the help on the template--User:Angel David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_D.&oldid=184402418"