User talk:David in DC

Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Wikipedia alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Naming conventions
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Policy Library

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Statutory Rapists

I've just reverted the category "Statutory rapists" from the articles of Buz Lukens, Dan Crane and Gerry Studds. I've explained why in my edits, on one of the articles' talk pages and on the talk page of the "new" editor who inserted them. This editor began editing under the name Lemonsquares, a week or so ago. Another edit I found in his history was one labelling a politician Jewish. The politician's congressional biography states that he's buried in a "Beth El Cemetary" so I'm inclined to believe the information is accurate and have left it alone. Nonetheless, these four edits --- three labeling politicians with a derogatory sexual category and a fourth labelling a politician a Jew --- sure seem, ummmm, familiar. I'd appreciate it if others kept an eye out for similarities to the edits of Tommy/John. Thanks David in DC (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there is no excuse this time for allowing Celona to reappear, and not be dealt with. A user check is in order. Can you request through SA? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done it. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it likely. The account is clearly not a new user and the interest in adding categories in regards to sex crimes with minors is a major red flag. Nothing conclusive yet, but I'll keep an eye on him anyway. AniMate 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out the recent edit history at Mark Levin. David in DC (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that ended more quickly than I expected. Ya gotta figure he has more socks tho.David in DC (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This bears watching. No proof except my crap detector David in DC (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this too. It does strike me as odd when someones first edits are to add (inflammatory?) categories to articles. Looking through the edits I don't see anything to incendiary, but I'll keep watching just in case. Frankly, I could care less if John celona returns, as long as he doesn't continue the behavior that lead to his bannings. AniMate 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced Celona/Tommy reappeared as Lemonsquares, who, within a month was showing his true colors and was banned as a sock of RWReagan. A few days later, Emma appears, making sex-scandal related edits to pages both John celona and Lemonsquares edited before their respective bans. I do care if he/she reappears. It can bode no good. Banned editors should not be able to evade bans by shedding skin and blithely resuming editing. David in DC (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm on board with the Lemonsquares as a sock, but I think you misunderstand me about not caring. I don't care if Celona comes back and starts editing if he does so in a positive manner and stays within Wikipedia's guidelines. Tommypowell didn't and he was banned. Same for Celona and Lemonsquares. If he continues this kind of behavior then he'll keep getting banned, if he returns and starts editing productively, then we probably won't even know if its him or not and he can stay. That's all. I'm skeptical that he'd be willing to return and edit productively though, as his taste for salacious and inappropriate conjecture seems to be the only editing he cares about. AniMate 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting edit. Can't resist revisiting places edited in previous lives? David in DC (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Similarly. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Lotta socks out there. David in DC (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if John celona/Tommypowell is involved in this, as it appears you've stumbled upon a completely different sock farm. Celona tended to focus on rather graphic or at least inflammatory sexual details. These socks seem to specialize in copyright vios (and adding lots of categories). Interesting. I suppose Alison (the checkuser who blocked EmmaRoad) might be able to shed some light on this. Probably just boils down to there being alot of freaks out there. AniMate 08:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where I tangled with Emma is exactly the same kind of issue as we saw from Tommy/John. See edit history of David Wu, Allan Howe and Bob Wise. Sex and politicians. Last time around, he or she used massive clean-up and edits to many congressional info boxes and bios to obscure the controversial edits. This time it was massive edits to record the religious identification of Members of Congress. But slipped in, there's always a return to exposing sexually titilating information. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not thoroughly convinced, as there appears to be a linear progression of socks associated with The Mystery Man and John/Tommy's edits overlap his. We'll probably never know, but the good news is that some administrators are aware that this kind of problematic editing is occurring and anyone who engages is in it will likely be blocked. Regardless, you're doing great work in the WP:BLP area. Keep it up. AniMate 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This bears watching. No proof except my crap detector. But the account was established 5 days after Emma was blocked as a sock puppet and a few of the first edits follow the old congressional infobox clean-up edit pattern. Then a few finishing up the physicians/dentists/etc in Congress category Emma was working on. Now he's moved on to categorizing homosexuals, including creating a brand new category for LGBT Democrats and filling it up. Also identifying LGBT politicians who aren't Democrats. Nothing wildly inappropriate, but banned editors should not be able to evade bans. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. David in DC (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And again. David in DC (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This IP editor bears watching. The pattern is very close. many edits, mostly in our friend's area of obsession, the intersection between sex, politics and scandal. I'm going to be afk for a couple of days, chaperoning a middle school trip to Ellis Island. Would someone please watch this and take appropriate action. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested an investigation. I'd still feel better if I knew others were watching this. Thanks to anyone who takes up my request. (MB?, SI?, Aleta? AniMate?) David in DC (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week,as sock of The Mystery Man.David in DC (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

William Krar

It seems at least possible that a reader may type the name in looking for the case, so the redirect seemed to solve some BLP issues (as well as the fact that the article on Mr Krar had no real content) as well as being of service to our readership. Apologies for not notifying you directly. Thanks for you understanding and happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your 'form' comment over on my talk page about William Krar being an "attack page" and threatening me with blocking for having created it is IMO way out of line. Perhaps it was worth redirecting, perhaps not, but it certainly wasn't an attack page. Please be more careful with tossing accusations like that around in the future. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right.

Thanks. And admittedly, I should have imported at least one of those references from the main article when I made the stub. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another of the many things about which I know nothing

WP copyright policy query: The images in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress are not in the public domain. The site has a full page listing conditions of their use. A lot of pics from there have gone into new info boxes recently. Three (John Wiley Bryant, Andrew Jacobs, Jr. and Gus Savage) have been newly uploaded. Are they kosher? David in DC (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, any work on that site that was produced by the U.S. government is public domain, as American copyright law on this point would override any claims otherwise on any website. Also from what I know, though, one of us is a lawyer and it isn't me. It might be worth bringing this at Media Copyright Questions, as some of the people there are more knowledgeable than I am. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed your suggestion here David in DC (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Kindly!!

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback it looks good nowTalk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just finished reading over this debate. I wanted to thank you for your patience and good sense in that debate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's enormously reassuring. Thank you for taking the time to write. David in DC (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

I protected it last time, I'll do it again. Just say the word (on my talkpage) if the IPs jump in the river again....all jokes aside.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. I hope you don't mind that I am asking you for advice. A few hours ago this page was changed. The tabloid cited or better the author was out for revenge then but it the attack fell flat because the whole issue has not been pursued by the mainstream media as intended. Anyway. I would not really object to adding the name except that WP:RS will prevent it as there are none. I have deelted the material, which was added in a way that IMO shows what the real intention was. What I am wondering is if there is a way to get the links deleted from the history without having to address this on BLP:ongoing concerns and starting the fuss all over again. I am quite new to WP and thanks to you I am bit more familiar now with the "inner workings". But I am still a novice. So any advice is very welcome. Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I know less than you think. I'm not sure if there is a way to do what you're looking to do, but you could try e-mailing your request. Here's a link that might help.David in DC (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try. Thanks a lot for your help and also for all your well thought contributions regarding this issue. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

This is likely too late to be useful, but for future reference: any administrator can do what you ask by deleting the offending revisions from the page history (I'm always happy to help with that sort of thing, and if it's sensitive you can even e-mail me rather than asking on my talk page). In extreme cases, there are also a limited number of users with an ability called "oversighting", which not only deletes them but prevents even admins from viewing or restoring them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monique Fuentes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Monique Fuentes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique Fuentes. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? William's scraper (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, AniMate, award David in DC this barnstar for excellent work in dealing with biographies of living persons. You are an excellent contributor with a ridiculous amount of common sense and deserve to be recognized. AniMate 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for some time, but just now got around to doing so. Now please take that annoying practical joke new message bar down. Not sure if you remember the drama it originally caused... but it was epic (epically boring and ridiculous, but still). AniMate 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for your advice on the practical joke box. I saw it and laughed out loud. I had no idea it had a history. I've taken it down. David in DC (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Veronica Moser

An article that you have been involved in editing, Veronica Moser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Moser. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Horrorshowj (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in adminship?

Hello David - I think you're getting very close to the point that you should consider applying for adminship, if doing so holds any interest to you. I think the tools would likely be useful to you in your BLP work. There are some cons as well (not so much cons about being an administrator as about going through the process to become one), but I figure there's no point in discussing those until I know whether or not you're at all interested. Anyway, let me know - here or at my place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've answered on your page. David in DC (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I caught the reference - let me know if you every change your mind, and until then keep up the good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

David Huckabee article

Hello! I have proposed deletion of the David Huckabee article under AfD for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. I do not think he is notable simply because he is the son of Mike Huckabee, nor do I believe his crime (alleged) makes him notable. I saw that you have been a major contributor on the talk page, and wanted to notify you in case you might have interest in commenting or following the discussions. Thank you. CorpITGuy (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger J

Hi, Thank you for the sources, however the article was already deleted. Thank God and those who support us for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deal W. Hudson

Thank you David.iop (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb Comm votes

Hi David - just noticed that you put a "support" vote under the "oppose" heading for Wizardman's Arb Comm candidacy [1]. As it stands now, that's being counted as an oppose vote, so you might want to go back and either move it to the support section or change the wording to make your intention clearer. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I like contributing here and your kind guidance has, time and again, helped keep me from inflicting too much damage while I type as if I were using my toes. David in DC (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet

Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments. Ryoung122 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A wise man once said "[D]eletion review is best used for contested deletions." You contest this deletion. Follow the rules, please. David in DC (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical issue: How can you add a "deletion review" to a page that doesn't exist? The page had to be re-created first. If you wish to list this on deletion review, be my guest. But if the only issue was lack of sources (and there are plenty) then there was no issue, the article should exist, and the deletion for the third time shouldn't have happened.Ryoung122 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical solution: The page does not have to be recreated first. The deletion review page quite explicitly lays out the steps for requesting review of a deletion. It does not include recreating the page. Instead, if unable to resolve the issue by directly contacting the closing admin, one adds a bit of code that's helpfully provided on the deletion review page to the active discussion part of that very same page. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest: some people don't like porn on Wikipedia, and there is a campaign by some to delete porn-related articles. But given the wide currency that this name has, I'm sure that in the end, this is no Franken-Coleman contest. It's more a Saxby Chambliss-Jim Martin one.Ryoung122 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest: some people think biographies of living people can rely on imdb, iafd and/or one of Luke Ford's blogs exclusively. These people are wrong.

There's nothing wrong with porn on Wikipedia. There's everything wrong with posting alleged information about living people without references to WP:reliable sources. IMDB, IAFD, LukeFord.com, lukeisback.com, etc. are not reliable sources. # of Google hits alone does not establish notability.

If one wanted to create a proper article, one might look among all those darn Google hits. Even if one never found any reliable sources, one would get to view a whole lot of nifty pictures. Best not to try it from work though. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

David in DC, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. The issue is not porn as something to view per se, but issues of history, fairness, equal treatment, legitimacy, respect. True, even the porn world uses people...one day they're "famous," the next day someone else is. But should this rush to the latest fad lead to a deletion/erasure of those who have gone before, especially if they left a mark? Bonnet won the "Freshman of the Year" in 2004; he is not a marginal player. He also passes the "Google hits" test. Further, what is the rationale for deletion? Why does not article not qualify when others do?

There are other issues as well. True, this may be a character, not a real person, so should "biographies of living person" really apply?

Finally, your comment about "nifty pictures" and "best not to try it from work though" is offensive. You are suggesting a lower, base motive for my support of this article's creation. Let me be honest: I do not have this star's DVDs or tapes. "Not try it from work" is a typical de-legitimating comment.

However, as Coretta Scott King once said, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This is a human rights issue, one of respect, legitimation. While some porn companies have treated their subjects like dirt, Bel Ami has won awards for treating its subjects humanely. That Bonnet chose to become a director of Bel Ami after his career was up says a lot about the quality of the organization. After all, no one who was "exploited" would want to exploit others in turn. Ryoung122 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sebastian Bonnet

Yeah, I saw that, but thanks for letting me know. I'll just leave it for now to see if he can turn up any reliable sources. If not, I'll bring it back to AfD. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Baltes

Regarding your edit here:

Revision as of 06:14, 6 January 2009 (edit) (undo)David in DC (Talk | contribs) (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)Next edit →

Maybe it's not a "political attack," but it sure looks suspiciously like a vendetta, as I am the same editor, and your comments are similar to the Sebastian Bonnet debate.

The irony is that Paul Baltes, along with his wife, developed a method of measuring "wisdom." Just yesterday you claim that a "wise man" does X, but now you question the wisdom of having an article on a man who was the world's leading expert on "wisdom." Ryoung122 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, you see a vendetta where there is none. On my blog yesterday (same name as here), I wrote about a Yiddish aphorism I learned from my grandmother and unwittingly transmitted to my son. Last night, I was up past midnight reading snitches and snatches of numerous Google searches. I was looking for more about folk wisdom from Germany or Poland, or in Yiddish. Serendipity and Murphy's Law conspired to dump me at the Baltes page. I was startled to find you at the top of the edit history.

I explain all this in greater detail than necessary because I have now perused more on your talk page than just the recent Bonnet stuff and conclude that it's best to explain once and disengage. Good fortune to you, sir. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting topics

Interesting topics I can add to is what I look for, not peeking at what you are doing for malice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving vent to my inner deletionist

Do I seem so wrong here? David in DC (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now archived with no response except from the editor whose edits I question. Kinda disappointing. Maybe I'm right, maybe he's right, but zero interest in this series of edits by anyone other than the two of us really troubles me. David in DC (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabriella Fox

You're welcome. Thanks for the revision and help. Hoang.pham19 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Black president in popular culture (United States)

On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black president in popular culture (United States), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Category Removal

Thank you for reverting the category removal at Lisa Ann. I had HotCat enabled and didn't understand how it worked and I must have removed the category. Thanks again. Farmercarlos (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request of anyone who watches this page

Some dolt at my place of work has gotten our IP address blocked. It's only for a day or two, at least for now, and I don't really desparately need access to WP at work. But a page I monitor, Shy Love, has a determined IP editor inserting unsourced personal biographical details. In my view, the insertions violate WP:BLP. Would you please look at the page and see if you agree? If so, would you please take appropriate action? If I ever find out who Toastman5 is, I'll fart in his/her general direction and indicate that his/her mother was a hamster and his/her father smelt of elderberries. David in DC (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Funniest movie ever. Aleta ^Sing 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFO

I use WP:IRC and flagged an oversighter down. Best to use WP:RFO with Special:EmailUser/Oversight to avoid attention. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to react fast. I'll try to react fast and right next time. :) David in DC (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, that was something that needed oversighting. MBisanz ^talk 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Adams

I appreciate the good faith and restraint the editors who disagree with me have shown in the discussion of Sam Adams. Everybody seems to be showing the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and give important matters due consideration. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category deletions

Please stop deleting categories while the thread you started about them on WP:BLPN is active.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The thread is about Frank DeGratto. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think there are separate issues for the others then maybe you should start a thread on each. To me, they all seem to have the same principles involved. If I'm wrong, please explain how they're different.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my view, we edit articles, especially BLP's, one at a time. Your mass reversion of my edits is unconstructive. David in DC (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits also appeard to be "mass". I don't see any individual discussion and you used the same edit summary in each case. Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions." Agreed. David in DC (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

King

In common law, IIRC, felonies have prison terms of over 1 year, while lesser sentences are given for misdemeanors. A four-day sentence for contempt of court hardly seems equivalent to a felony conviction. However, if you want to assert that if LaGrotta deserves the category then so does King feel free to make that argument. It appears spurious to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wow, thank you

No problem. They evidence of visiting old ponds was compelling. KnightLago (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened before, but I doubt mass rollback would work as others have edited many of the same articles after him. You could just go through his contributions and remove any that you feel are incorrect or inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a question at the bot request you made. Please take a look when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk)

Disagreeing

Disagreeable? Do you mean calling a bizarre suggestion "bizarre"? I was referring to the suggestion, not to the editor. That's no more out of line than calling other proposals "BLP violations". So long as we're commenting on the edits (or proposals), and not the editors, I don't think there's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I ever use these edit summaries, seriatem, and claim I'm not being disagreeable, please trout-slap me, quick

"bad edit"
"bizarre"
"deleted for no good reason"
"doesn't even make sense"
Cheers, David in DC (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand...

All of the totally constructive recent edits with the totally constructive edit summary "sharper cat" are a sight to behold. Bravo, Will. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

It's still wrong. Please see the relevant Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deal W. Hudson

Done! Regards. V1^t 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I've put some more refs for this info. I thought this was a well known fact, that is why i provided only one ref 4 this info (from Hudson himself). I hope U can choose more reliable refs now (and remove the old ref for this info). Regards! V1^t 12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not the editors

A number of your recent comments and edit summaries have focused on me as an individual, which is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. This posting,[2] for example, has little to do with the subject matter and seems mostly to be a complaint about my behavior. If you wish to complain about me then the right places to do so are on my user talk page or through one of the dispute resolution boards.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

Cheers, David in DC (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Springies

Man that Freehold edit is getting old, time to put a hidden comment? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about oxygen and sex but the article probably gets vandalised just as much! It's more my reversions that have shaped the article than my additions. I couldn't believe it when that hotdog stand rivalry bubbled over into this article! I've added the hidden comment now (see here). It may seem a little over the top but it'll do the trick. At least it's not like the one on Michael Ballack. I laughed my arse off when I first saw that! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Never saw that before. It's hilarious. Your hidden comment is much more understated. It looks foolproof. Until a greater fool comes along, anyway. David in DC (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good little link there! The constructive capitalist in me (or is it the Marxist socialist?) regards such gains as not just ill-gotten, but fraudulent and theft! People's ignorance and complicity is this process is, in no hyperbolic terms, responsible for a good portion of economic problems. Good stuff. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Pedon

Thanks for your hard work on this article. I've left a note on the talk page of the article, and I'm hoping you can respond there. None of the sources used seem to pass WP:RS and there is no way to verify her death. I'm of the opinion that her birth/date dates should be removed from the article because frankly, those are completely without sourcing. Cheers. Law _{type! snype?} 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen GAR notification

Bruce Springsteen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been a big help

A long time ago you helped me on List of Honorific titles page, Can you give your opinion on it on this page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination) Kelvin Martinez (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FOX AND HOUND appears to be a hoax

I asked a friend from Penn if he ever heard of F&H. I sense it is a hoax, given the lack of footnotes and a direct lift from text I provided on three Yale societies.

Let me hear from you on this. I'll wait to hear from you before I go to "the powers that ween" at Wikipedia.SLY111 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111

Ref name tag

Hi,

If you're making a ref name tag, the proper formatting is <ref name = name>{{cite whatever | information = stuff }}</ref> for the first one, subsequent references use <ref name = name/>. The slash before the terminal > is what is important, and makes the </ref> unnecessary. Thought you'd be interested, given your recent edits to The Awareness Center. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes made. Thanks for the advice. David in DC (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey David - good to see you're editing again. It's now been more than a year since I asked if you'd be interested in being nominated for adminship, so I thought I'd try again. The process to get adminship can be a little unpleasant, and I'm not sure whether you'd be successful (that's no slight on you, but rather on the somewhat arbitrary basis of many users' support/oppose decisions), but we can always use more BLP-sensitive admins. Anyway, let me know, and either way it's nice to see you back. Steve Smith (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, for context, I used to be Sarcasticidealist. It's been a while. Steve Smith (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Steve: I knew who you were. I'm tickled that you noticed me back and renewed the suggestion. Thank you.

But no thanks, I can't devote the time, and I don't need the aggravation. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied by e-mail. Steve Smith (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't access home e-mail from work. I'll read and respond tonight. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jake Brahm

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jake Brahm. 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/Jake Brahm (2nd nomination). 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) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kelly O'Dell

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kelly O'Dell. 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/Kelly O'Dell. 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) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tennis vandal

I was fully expecting those ones to be vandalistic as well, but this edit conforms to what's in List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions (and has been there for a long time) and this one's consistent with both List of French Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions. Weird. As to what we can do, I've added the I.P.'s talk page to my watchlist, and I'll do spot checks of its contributions over the next week or so to see if it's resumed editing and, if it is, whether the edits are vandalism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Steve Smith (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: your comments in the RFC. your welcome. Best wishes in your editing :) Okip 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Adams

Hey there, I did look for a discussion on this strange name phrasing, and then I tried to start a discussion on the talk page more than month ago that got no response. However, after looking at it again, I do see that I missed the archive which I have now read. I would like to revisit this issue because since the time of the incident, Breedlove is writing a memoir and has appeared in several magazines with the story. If you'd like to comment on my original talk page post, that might be a good start. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced warning

Hi David. You might want to reconsider this warning posted to the talk page of DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that editor's only contribution to the article in question is some fairly harmless Wikification; the article was created by another editor. Favonian (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks rather like you have issued warnings to everyone who ever edited Elaine Parent. That's a bit "radical". Favonian (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaine Parent: you have the wrong editor

Excuse me, regarding the attack warning you left on my talk page. I have made only two minor edits. In the first, I erroneously made the section heading lowercase, then realized that "Parent" was a surname. See edit diff. I am certain that you have the wrong editor. Esowteric+Talk 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, a number of editors, at least two of them admins, got attack page creator warned. You might want to revert or explain the templated warnings. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we live and learn. I was on autopilot at the time and made the edit without actually reading the article :) Esowteric+Talk 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaine Parent

No prob. Link to reply. Dlohcierekim 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. What a nice thing to come home to after an extended sojourn in real life. I'm touched and honored. I'll be around more again, so this is very cool. I'll wield any authority very lightly. David in DC (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, David in DC! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm too busy IRL. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador?

Hi there, I'm LiAnna Davis, the communications associate for the Wikimedia Foundation's new Public Policy Initiative. We are currently looking for dedicated Wikipedians near the George Washington University and Georgetown University areas to serve as Campus Ambassadors, and I hope you might be interested or know someone who is.

Volunteer Campus Ambassadors will provide face-to-face training and support for professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add images, how the talk pages work, etc. If you're especially enthusiastic and know people on campus, you can set up Wikipedia-related student groups and organize "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events.

More details about the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador.

The estimated time commitment for this role is 3-5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and we will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

Please let us know if this is something that sounds interesting to you or if you know of any other Wikipedians near George Washington or Georgetown who could help out. Feel free to respond on Annie Lin's talk page or email her at alin@wikimedia.org (Annie is our Campus Team Coordinator). --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C.R.A.F.T. Syndrome

Can't Remember A Freakin' Thing. I may have cleaned that up just a wee bit. David in DC (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: where dolts with insomnia ...

go to makes asses of themselves. User:David in DC will be taking a WP:Wikibreak now.David in DC (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it.

What's his username mean? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Sparks, but with a lisp. David in DC (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The First Rule of Holes

If you're in one, stop digging. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good idea, at least you are a voice of reason unlike some of the other editors, ill have to remember your advice in the future. Longevitydude (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Your welcome, you too. Longevitydude (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Polin

Hi, as you are the main contributor to the article, The Awareness Centre I though you might like to comment at the BLP noticeboard thread as to your experiences there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

My accusation regarding Wiki-stalking was primarily directed at JJBulten. I see you and Grismaldo as being "recruited" by him as a sort of way to "bully" his way to acceptance for what is, in fact, non-mainstream, non-scientific hocus-focus.

Further, we saw a false charge from O Fenian, I wonder if he is going to apologize now that it turns out that he was wrong about my reporting the alleged death of Margaret Fish to Wikipedia.Ryoung122 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never met him. I've never interacted with him except in open communication on-wiki. We are not working together. We disagreed about Timenu's first summary at the AfD. I've counselled Longevitydude on civility, civilly, and he responded civilly. It's up above. It wouldn't hurt for you to go to his page and read my counsel to him. It would apply in spades to the tone of your edits.

Re-reading your comments above, I just noticed something very funny. I think it's a typo, but whether it is or not, I'm adopting it into my vocabulary as a neologism. Hocus-focus. Perfect. Thanks.

Sorry, I got distracted.

If your wikistalking charge was primarily directed at JJB, my name did not belong in it.

"I see you as..." At various times you've "seen" me as anti-gay (which if you knew me offline you'd understand just why that one pissed me off), anti-porn (Again, nonsense. And I've got the hotel bill television charges to prove it) and a member of a cabal (I think I've responded adequetely to that bit of bullpoop sufficiently, both here and where you made the accusation.) So your virtual eyesight isn't very good. You might want to consult a virtual ophthalmologist.

I feel bad for poor Margaret. O Fenian's last sentence says a member of her family complained that she was still alive. I sure hope she heard of it and cut that guy out of her will.

Sorry, got distracted again.

About COI. I'll say it again, if you think our content differences have ANYTHING to do with COI, you don't know what COI is. Which might explain why you violate the rules about it so promiscuously, ubiquitously and darn-near universally. Please read the effing WP:COI page.

About your occasional "I'll appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've done it before" trope: Please do. Nothing kills a bad product better than good advertising. Please call their attention to your edit history and mine. Pretty please. With sugar and a maraschino cherry on top. If you do it 100 times, I'll find it notable. More than 110 times, I'll find it supernotable. More than 120 times, superdupernotable.

I'll end with my favorite Teamster salutation: Keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down. David in DC (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

note

I left a comment at the thread at blpn - regards - Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke ford

Can you provide me with a link to this bloggers article that you claim Polin admits that it is her, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I have it thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Suggestion

I was saddened to see you accuse me for a second time of WP:OWN violation at List of Fictional Penguins and in case you were curious, yes I have noticed your negative personal comments although you needn't be concerned that I took them seriously. Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue and I can tell you that after having spent many many hours repairing these articles I also have strong opinions. Despite this I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you. I see that you have now added the character Mumble the Penguin to the list for a third time. You have also added Tennessee Tuxedo, another fictional penguin character. I assume you are acting in good faith, however the continued addition of these characters in the middle of an ongoing discussion (or two) is counterproductive to building consensus on this issue. I will not revert your most recent edits because I see that you are trying to properly demonstrate notability, however I hasten to mention that the current references do not meet the burden of proof for notability. If these references are not improved then the entries will most likely be removed.

Both the Mumble and Tennessee Tuxedo entries are now supported by references that do not cover the penguin characters in a significant manner. The reference you use for Mumble doesn't even mention him and the reference for Tennessee Tuxedo is an article about his animator and it only mentions him once. Please also note that notability is not inherited and thus an article about the notable film "happy feet" that discursively covers Mumble only in relation to the film is insufficient to demonstrate the notability of the character as anything but an element of the film. I wrote up a new post here using Mumble the Penguin as an example in order to have something to use as an example for later editors that run into the same issue. Again keep in mind that I am absolutely not interested in excluding Mumble from the list however I am interested in making sure that certain rules be followed in order to add content to articles that otherwise slip into useless directories. Even articles as seemingly insignificant as this one reflect on Wikipedia's ability to be treated as a serious source for legitimate encyclopedic information. A list of every fictional work in which the word "penguin" appears is certainly not appropriate. Whether of not a sourced list of notable fictional penguin characters is appropriate is debatable but if by consensus it is deemed to be then I think it is only appropriate that we follow the editorial rules when adding to it. -Thibbs (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are solicited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#Accept stipulations. JJB 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in providing evidence to this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, still working on mine of course. ArbCom will like it if you use specific fact headings to clarify the links without anyone else tapping you besides me. The tongue-in-cheek language is fine by me but needs headings that describe the facts alleged, for disambiguation. Shalom. JJB 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records

Greetings,

To clarify: the GRG is the #1 source for the Guinness World Records "oldest people" titleholders. Maud Farris-Luse came from the GRG. Guinness at the time had nominated Amy Hulmes, 113, of the UK when the GRG sent in the case.

It's also possible for cases to be sent in directly to Guinness World Records. But even when that happens (such as Maria Capovilla), the family told me they first saw an article in the news about the GRG and Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan in May 2004. It took them a year+ to find the documents necessary for acceptance.

Remember, notability is established by the existence of outside sources, not whether the article has them right now. If an article appears to be borderline, it should be tagged first, requesting sources be added. Usually, a courtesy of one month is given to the article creator. If after a month, the article is still unsourced, then it's nominated for deletion.

JJBulten has not playing by the rules.

1. He mass-nominated a lot of articles on December 5, using the same wording each time. 2. He votes for his own nomination (again against policy). 3. He self-references his own "policies" even when they haven't been approved by others and are little more than him changing things on a "deletion outcomes" or project page.

I'm not going to lie, there's no need for hundreds of articles on every supercentenarian. However, JJ has argued that even if notability is established by outside sources, these people shouldn't have a biography if their name is on a list.

This is against Wiki policy (problem #4). It's also against common sense: we don't say we can't have articles on Supreme Court justices because they are on a list of supreme court justices. Biography is needed to make these people "human", not just statistics.

Now, a few concerns about your comments:

Yes, JJBulten brought all these AFD's to your attention. You didn't just "discover" these here. As usual, JJ plays dirty, and this is another example. He also makes a list of "friends" and tries to bully/intimidate new or young editors (for example, he suggested that Brendanology wasn't a good editor because he was only 15). So I see your being there more a product of JJ than you yourself.

The GRG is listed in Guinness World Records 2011 as the source of their "top ten" oldest persons list.

The GRG has deferred to Guinness for the World's Oldest Person title, but remember Guinness only tracks first-place records. It is therefore necessary to use the GRG to determine who is second-oldest, third-oldest, et cetera. And that could be sourced to GWR 2011. Just buy one today, and see for yourself.

Also, self-published sources are admissable if the person is an "expert" and the material is non-controversial.

I agree that articles need more than "just" a www.recordholders.org reference, a WOP reference, etc...but it could be useful for names on a list.

www.recordholders.org is a German Guinness records club (Club Saxonia). Louis is a content provider, not a publisher.

Ryoung122 05:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I will consider what you have written above. Please consider what I will write below.

You can see every interaction I have ever had with JJB, by looking on-wiki. We've never communicated in any other way. He has NEVER brought an AfD to my attention, except to the extent that he has brought them to everyone's attention with his very constructive table of articles and outcomes.

I am not part of any cabal. (I'm also not anti-porn or anti-gay.)

I have no conflict of interest. I avoid articles where I might have one. I have no conflict of interest with you. I have no off-wiki interest that you have any connection to. Please re-read WP:COI.

One's credibility can be damaged when one makes accusations that have no basis in reality. Especially one's credibility in the eyes of the falsely accused.

Never trust a person who cannot demonstrate a sense of humor.

The only absolutely accurate indicia of adulthood are the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and the ability to take matters seriously without taking ones self seriously.

David in DC (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just chiming in here...the Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to.Original research should be preferred to second-hand (or worse) gleanings.I gather that those who claim Rejuvenation Research (whose renaming by its current editor I deplore) is not reliable are questioning the professional reputation of Mary Ann Liebert Inc.,its publisher.But to claim that hearsay is the only admissible evidence in the Court of Wikipedia is just repulsive.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I don't like the rules, I work to change them, or switch my energies to some project whose rules I find more amenable. It would be the height of hubris for me to take a third path, that of ignoring or derogating the importance of the rules in favor of what I believe to make more sense.

If the rules don't suit, please do not ignore them. Please work to change them. By consensus. That would be done at the policy's project page, not individual, article-by-article. We don't change (or disregard) the rules, we work within them. The approach you expound, that so derogates current WP policy --- "the Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to. Original research should be preferred to second-hand (or worse) gleanings..." --- is profoundly misguided. Experts can contribute here. But if experts come to this collaborative effort viewing, and denominating, the rules as things to abhor, ignore, and deplore, they can expect to stretch the assumption of good faith required for collaboration up to, and sometimes beyond, its breaking point. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Yikes!

You're most certainly welcome! Glad to be of assistance while you're attempting to rescue an article like this. Cheers! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Louis Epstein: "[T]he Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to."

The more I reflect on this, the more reprehensible it seems. What utter arrogance.

I don't like the rules. But, since you misguided folks somehow have a wider audience than I normally get, I want my information included in your project, whose rules I find "repulsive". [Query: where's the cordiality in the descriptor "repulsive"?] So I'll violate the rules and disrupt the project. There, there, it'll all be for the best. Surely, you understand that expertise is more important than consensus.

Actually, Louie, I don't. And stop calling me Shirley. David in DC (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a very bad idea...

for a new list.

Longevity arbitration

Thanks for your comments; this is a subject I'm mildly interested in, and I could tell before this went to arbitration that there were serious problems. You and Itsmejudith seem to be the most level-headed people involved in this topic now, so you definitely deserve some commendation for your role. I figured that the subject area could use a fresh voice, and I could tell from the beginning that it would require someone experienced with separating arguments from ranting; being a history major, that's much of what my work consists of. I'm not one to get intimidated, and I can handle people's venting, so I keep my talkpage open; otherwise, I doubt I'd have gotten that rather informative (in all seriousness) message from Ryoung122. It's nice to know that I've been helpful, and once this case finishes I might start doing some content work on longevity. Thanks again for your comments, and keep up the good work!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Scooter Braun

Hi, I added citations where you had requested they be in the article Scooter Braun. Inquiring if you could remove the citation needed tags. Cheers Bped1985 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cabal

"A cabal is a number of people greater than two together in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence; a cabal is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish; because of this negative connotation, few organizations use the term to refer to themselves or their internal subdivisions. Amongst the exceptions is Discordianism, in which the term is used to refer to an identifiable group within the Discordian religion" --- lede graf of Cabal entry on en.wikipedia.

I may be a wrong-headed, egotistical, homophobic, anticentenarian, antisupercentenarian, interest-conflicted, anti-porn, deletionist wise guy. I'm not, but I think that's a rough catalogue of the various incivil accusations spewn in my direction, of late. Homophobic really pissed me off.

But this cabalist thing is way beyond tolerable. Read the effing definition. Note the words intrigue, secret, conspiricy, back rooms, insidious influence, and evil.

Honest to goodness, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong alone. Reading the WOP proposed deletion list and weighing in on the AfD's listed there doth not a conspiracy make. I agree with JJB more often than I disagree, but if you compare our edits, you'll see disagreement occasionally. You'll also see me try to rescue a couple of articles --- succeeding twice and failing once. Theirs, Farris-Muse, and one of the Japanese centenarians. I'm not providing diffs here, and probably misrendering some names, because I'm not going to footnote my own effing rant.

I am part of no cabal and I am no one's #2 (except maybe my wife, if I know what's good for me.) <------- Assistance for the humor-impaired: The parenthetical is what's called a joke. It plays on the comedic trope of matriarchy.

Please accuse me of something other than nefarious conspiracy. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Although many at this particular AfD have questioned the nomination, the spotlight you put on the article improved it, with much credit given to your own work, from this to this. At the end of the day this is a major improvement, so thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I second the kudos to you, David in DC. It's particularly impressive to change courses and be flexible based on new information. I'd award you a barnstar but it wouldn't be big enough to fit on your page. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Update: figured out how to fit it: --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Rescue Barnstar
		I, Tomwsulcer, award David in DC this rescue barnstar for saving an article through flexibility and smarts. You have a fan from New Jersey! Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Heart Barnstar

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		THANK YOU SO MUCH for helping me with Scooter Braun. I really, really appreciate when people cross-check what I have written. And you are doing just that. When I started to re-vamp that article it was nothing more than a sentence commenting on the fact that he was Jewish and then that quick quick blurb about him being arrested. In other words, a complete mess :) I have kind of run into a wall as it were in finding sources. Theres only like 2 substantial articles out there on him. Anyway I'm rambling. Thank you again for the help! You are truly a blessing to the Wikipedia community! Bped1985 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cabalist

Saying you are hurt by the comments is 'off-wiki' and irrelevant. Not that many people actually care about whether or not you are hurt by the cabalism accusations, you know. That's the harsh reality. You continue attempting to destroy supercentenarian-related articles, just like BrownHairedGirl did to List of Belgian supercentenarians. Despite your claims of well-meaning, it is clear from edits on pages like this that you do NOT mean well for those articles, seeing non-existent WP:MOSBOLD violations.

Please behave. → Brendan 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your point of view. In my opinion, the fact that I am hurt by a false statement about me is relevant to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a host of other rules ArbCom will be opining upon at some point in the future. Not everyone is as equananimous about incivility as our colleague BNL. (The welcome at the top of his talk page is exemplary --- a sight to behold.) I aspire to his level of equanimity, but I have not achieved it. So if I aver, on-wiki, that a false attack hurts my feelings, and that its near-ubiquitous reiteration rubs salt in the open wound, I'm hard-pressed to understand your claim of off-wiki irrelevancy.

The fact that the cabalist charge is 100% false is, I grant, a greater violation of our norms, guidelines and policies than hurting my feelings. But hurting my feelings by reiterating a calumny is not irrelevant. And your denomination of it as "off-wiki" truly mystifies me. Where, pray tell, am I being lied about? On-wiki. Where am I complaining of it? On-wiki. I'm left dumbstruck.

The claim that I'm a member of a cabal whose purpose is detrimental to our shared collaborative project is, as I've said, of far greater moment. It's a lie. WP:BLP applies to me every bit as much as it applies to the subjects of our articles. (That's why I collapsed the talk page entries where our colleague RY called me a homophobe.) A cabal meets in secret, for nefarious purposes. It's evil. Or at least that's what it says here. I am a participant in no cabal. I read the proposed articles for deletion listed in the chart on the WOP talk page, and I participate. I'm a member of the WikiProject and hope some day it functions as a WikiProject should. The chart on the talk page has led me (and other editors) to rescue several centenarian articles. It's led to consensus decisions to delete others. That's how the system is supposed to work.

You're completely wrong about MOS:BOLD editing, too. You must be confusing me with someone else. I have MOS:FLAG concerns, but I made one edit along those lines, was reverted by a tender of your WP:WALLEDGARDEN, and concluded I had better things to do with my volunteer time than argue about flags. But your carelessness with the accusation is symptomatic. I've raised the MOS:FLAG issue with a single edit, and backed off after being reverted. I think I'm right, but categorization by nationality, country of origin, country of birth, Japanese prefecture, Swiss canton, profession, centenarian-ness, super-centenarian-ness, super-duper-centenarian-ness, and any other categorization scheme one might devise to accrete all of this unsourced hobbyist, stub-cruft into wikipedia so many places that it will live on eternally, in "mirrors" if not on wikipedia, will be dealt with in the fullness of time. I don't feel compelled to press the issue now.

About being completely wrong on the MOS thing: I'll tell you directly what I've told our mutual friend LongevityDude, directly. In my opinion, your zeal occasionally overmatches your judgment. Your "style" sometimes undermines the substance of what you say. This is regrettable. Especially when you're right.

Your advice to behave is, of course, always good counsel. I'm mildly dismayed that you feel the need to request it, rather than suggest it, but again, so be it. I will note for the record, however, that Austin Powers says "Behave!" with substantially more panache. David in DC (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I confused the WP:MOSBOLD issue, the one I was talking about was WP:MOSFLAG, as you rightly pointed out.

And by the way, as far as Wikipedia alone is concerned, LongevityDude is NOT my "mutual friend"... please get that clear. → Brendan 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendanology, I would advise you to read what I've written here, specifically the two indented paragraphs, and seriously think about it. All you're doing is making yourself look irrational, which does nothing to help your already logically flawed arguments. Above all, stop telling people how to behave; you aren't exactly coming from a position of valor on this issue. As for this MOSFLAG issue; if BrownHairedGirl doesn't start an RfC in a few days, I'll do it myself if it comes to that. She and David in DC are right on this issue, and I'm not sure why we'll have to drag it out if it's a foregone conclusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've solicited some outside input at WQA, specifically Wikiquette alerts/Brendanology's comments. I'd ordinarily let this slide, but given the ongoing arbitration I think this needs some outside attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Will Rogers Quote

I don't do Wikiquote, but if someone does, this'd be a great one to source and include.

"There's no such thing as a stranger. Just a friend I haven't met, yet". --- Will Rogers

David in DC (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome Snidely Whiplash picture here

And funny essay to boot(talk page stalker).

Thanks, BNL.

David in DC (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty Logging In

I think it has something to do with learning to toss my cookies. But in the meantime, I'm posting from this IP address exclusively. I'll give notice when I learn to purge the offending virtual pastry. 68.228.14.101 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've regained access to my account. I will resme editing from here, now. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At Least You Have A Sense of Humor

As we can see, outside sources such as CNN continue to consider extreme age "notable" when the age reaches a certain threshold (circa 113).

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/us/louisiana.oldest.african.american_1_mississippi-winn-gerontology-research-group-supercentenarians?_s=PM:US

We can also see that the Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records continue to be cited as notable sources in mainstream citations.

It's amazing to me how Wikipedia is like sausage-making: no one would want to see the process.

Everyone has their own little issues. Some are against flags. Some are against extreme old age as notable. Some are against bolding, some are against wiki-links for years of birth and death.

Some believe that Noah lived to 950, and is thus oppposed to secular mainstream scientific consensus that such ages are mythical (not to mention the idea that the entire Earth flooded).

To me, the biggest current issues are false charges. I'll agree to drop the "cabalist" accusation. What I meant by that is that certain editors e-mail other editors privately to recruit them for an AFD. The editors that show up on an AFD are often not random, unbiased persons.

By the way, JJBulten was "concluding" ArbCom discussions. Since when did a party to a dispute get to be the judge too? Who is calling out the misbehavior of JJB?

Too often, as in a football game, referees respond to the "response", not the initial provocation.

I am taking a wiki-break. I don't agree with a lot of your editing, and most of all with your mixing issues, but I realize that you can sometimes be reasonable. And for that I'm willing to work with trying to tone down the current situation.Ryoung122 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. It's fitting that my edit summary be about chronology.David in DC (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop attacks on the GRG

I find it incredulous that the Gerontology Research Group is used as a reliable source by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, etc., yet you continue to violate Wiki policy by mislabelling the GRG as "unreliable" and using put-down terms such as "data dump."

Seriously, you are in error and in violation of Wiki policy and I will open a discussion with the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues.Ryoung122 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: isn't GRG a primary source? Wikipedia likes secondary sources. Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I think the biggest problem here is one of misunderstanding terms. The word "reliable", as defined in a standard dictionary, may well apply to the raw data compiled by the Gerontology Research Group and hosted online at grg.org. I take no stand on its reliability, in the generic sense of that word. What I'm talking about is the phrase "reliable source", as that term is defined in the rules which govern wikipedia.

Seriously, I beseech thee, "...open a discussion with the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues." But please, I beg of you, stop threatening to do so. The action, by your logic, is almost mandatory. Over time, your catalog of my evil-doing seems comprehensive and voluminous. If I'm the editor you describe, you must inform the authorities. But the repeated threat, without action, treads fairly close to the "no legal threats" rule. It also grow tedious. In some ears, it sounds like bullying. In others, just pathetic.

It also seriously undermines all of the arguments you've made in the normal course of dispute resolution. If those arguments are valid, they will carry the day in any resolution. No appeal to the Foundation will be needed. If, perchance, your arguments do not carry the day, after you've exhausted your routinely available remedies and appeals, you can always make an appeal to the Foundation thereafter, explaining why the result reached in the ordinary course of dispute resolution is so divergent from the proper result that the Foundation must act.

Seriously, a "raw data dump" is a data set before it's been analyzed, synthesized, and interpreted. On en.wikipedia, you can't go to this data set, and then analyze, synthesize and report your findings. It violates WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and the guidance of WP:TERTIARY. Somebody has to take that secondary step and some reliable source, as the term is defined here on en.wikipedia, must publish it.

Seriously, aren't you on wikibreak?

Seriously, I find it incredible that you still do not know the difference between "incredible" and "incredulous." One might say I'm incredulous about it. At least one might say so if one had mastered the difference. David in DC (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Tom's hit the nub of the problem. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

David, Let me put it this way. People send cases (apply) to the GRG list. We currently have over 1600 cases accepted and more than 600 pending. Pending means someone sent us something on a case but we either do not have enough evidence to accept as validated, or the case has not yet been processed.

The data being sent is the "raw" data. The data being displayed on the GRG lists is not raw data; it is processed data. Not anyone can add it. Right now, Dr. Coles is the only person on the GRG website that actually adds data. I am the top advisor as to what to add next.

So, stop with the "raw data dump." Those words are a misrepresentation at best, and intentionally negative. Ryoung122 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Longevity arbitration

Having a Japanese moment now, are we? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Wikiproject WOP

When you make comments like this:

this still-birth of a wikiproject.

you are being counterproductive. The project (not founded by me) has moved forward and is operational.

Check the history, who started it?Ryoung122 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As always, thanks for sharing David in DC (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible...

to cast true aspersions. I think "false aspersions" is redundent. David in DC (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

You might be able to expedite this expeditiously. As I describe here, it appears Cam46136 inadvertently deleted a lot of comments from WT:WOP by accidentally editing from an old version. I identify the solution as being to restore the version just before Cam46136's, readd Cam46136's one paragraph to that version, and discount your interim changes as already present in the old version. If this makes sense, it's a two-minute repair of an unconscious WP:TALKO violation, and I'd appreciate it if you could carry it out, as I am not editing the page. (No comment, of course, as to how often I've made such repairs myself, and I don't mean Itsmejudith's edit conflict today either.) Thanks! JJB 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm as reluctant as you to undertake fixing this error. Especially after discovering that more than IMJ's post has been disappeared. Some evidence of behavior at the crux of the ArbCom case has also been disappeared. So I've made this request on the workshop talk page. David in DC (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Typing in ALL CAPS

"Typing in all capital letters on the Internet is considered rude because it is difficult to read and comes across as very aggressive (LIKE SHOUTING!)"

It can get you fired.

"Online TYPING IN ALL CAPS is considered shouting and is frowned on in most cases."

All caps: "With the advent of the internet, all caps became closely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps when posting messages online. However, in cases where it is not possible to bold text, all caps can be used as an alternative to bolding."

A word, to the wise, is sufficient. To a dolt even a thousand words are not. David in DC (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

References

If I ever...

post am essay like this which castigates some other editor for posting "reams" of material, as this essay does, please find the nearest large trout and use it in the manner in which G-d intended it to be used. David in DC (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)