User talk:Daycd/Archive3

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

Welcome.

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

Photosynthesis

Some time ago you helped improve the article Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately. Thanks. --Miller 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the photosynthesis discussion page it is suggested that the article should be cleaned up. Maybe parts of the reaction centre article can be 'borrowed' to describe the light reactions in the photosynthesis article. I'm planning to create a section on the Calvin cycle and the pentose phosphate pathway too. After so much effort has been put into the reaction centre article by so many people it seems a great shame to get rid of it. The reason I want to do this is I'm desperate to get a featured article to my name! I figured photosynthesis is something that can be considered to be mainstream science and so has a better chance of becoming a featured article.--Miller 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would just be nice I guess. I really thibk the photosynthesis article needs cleaning though; Three sections on it are stubs. --Miller 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image reaction centre

The image looks good. I would appreciate it if you incorporate it into the article ~~because it seems as though few people support me or the article at the moment!~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpsons contributor (talk • contribs)

I think people are very supportive, they just don't think it is ready for FA status. Personally ,i think you have done a great job. I have tried to be constructive but if you don't like the changes it is your perogative to change back or discuss. Don't take the comments too harshly they are certainly not meant that way. Your contributions to wikipedia have been fantastic to date. David D. (Talk) 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. The image will certainly help it on its way to becoming a featured article though, because I have no idea how to use the various vector programs you're using.--Miller 13:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When does the 'featured article candidate' period expire? How is it finally decided whether or not it will be a featured article? It's been a long time now. --Miller 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[reply]

Barbara McClintock

Her article is on the main page today, that is why the boost in edits (vandals) JohnRussell 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense! David D. (Talk) 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfati article

Thanks, and you're right -- I too wonder what goes on inside the sacred halls. BTW, I wasn't sure if the sarcasm of my response to your sarcasm would work, but I guess it did. Oddly we managed to get that point accross without the nutters realizing the sarcasm. Jim62sch 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I may try to make a more sourced version of the relevant Sarfati section. Do you want to collaborate on that by email? JoshuaZ 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. There must be other source material out there too. My e-mail is in wiki so I'll look out for a message. David D. (Talk) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

human

The userpage is a sandbox. I'd like everyone to have at it and take the thing apart and see what we can come up with. We can discuss the merits of different proposals on User talk:Goethean/Human3. I guess what I'm saying is that I can't redo the whole thing by myself. It has to be a group effort. — goethean ॐ 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I think we can reach a good concensus and get a really good paragraph that everyone can live with. Good job getting the ball rolling. David D. (Talk) 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re RFA

I emailed my reason why I accpeted that RFA, email me back. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have IRC as I want to talk to you personaly I need someone I could trust? --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just e-mailed you back. I don't have IRC that I know of. I have never used it before. David D. (Talk) 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Olympics

Sorry I have tended to major on the winters as that is my area of interest. If I find out I'll let you know. Is there a WikiProject worth looking at for this. By the way is there really nothing we can do with this guy. He is really being to tee me off. One moment he does some thing good and then wreaks it with an edit like you mentioned. The "main" thing is he just will not communicate. A few more guys like this one and Wikipedia will be dead in the water with everyone who is keen just leaving in disgust. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first i thought he was just a kid but now i think he probably has autism. His single minded persistance and total lack of communication is hard to explain in any other context. He does have a user page, but rarely uses it. The problem i had was that he persisted on adding flags with the wrong format. Eventually I just kept trying to make edits that would lead himin the direction icalled tolerate. Sometimes that work. Other times he would just do his normal thing (mayhem). Look at this archive for a taste of the problems we had before. As you see nothing has changed. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Track events

Hi David. I saw that you modified my changes to the template. Thanks. It looks much better your way. But since you seem to know your way around there, I just added the article on the 400m Hurdles, but when I try the link from the template it takes me to the "edit this page" rather than the article itself. If I enter the 400m into the search field it takes me to the page correctly. Do you what I'm doing wrong? --Mmounties 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it only seems to do this weird act if I click on the link from the 100m page. It seems to work fine elsewhere. --Mmounties 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i can't help you here. Everything looks fine but the links from the template do not seem to recognise the 400m Hurdles pages as they are still red links. This could be a delay in the wikipedia database being updated. i refreshed my local cache and that made no difference. i'd say give it a day and see if it is still a proble. i bet it will fix itself.

I'm glad you like the template changes. Some pages have quite a few templates so I was thinking the smaller the better. Good job on improving it. David D. (Talk) 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have solved the problem by piping the link [[400m Hurdles|400m Hurdles]] but i have no idea why it did not work before. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. For the Horace Mann page, I just copied your example of a Infobox that you put in the Discussion page, because it was appropriate for the school and there weren't any mistakes with the margins, so thanks for that also. Wikster72 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Wikster72[reply]

No problem, I'm glad you found that one on the discussion page useful. David D. (Talk) 04:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice

Wikipedians, after doing some research, it's become apparent to me that this user bears a strong prejudice against Horace Mann School. While he doesn't seem to be an alumnus, student, or parent, he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time editing the page. While some of the edits areItalic text' productive, many of them are not. He removes factual and verifiable information, which is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. So sir I ask you to stop and desist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.10 (talk • contribs)

If you keep adding POV and unverifiable data i will keep removing it. I note you have avoided the talk page at the Horace Mann arrticle. David D. (Talk) 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann

I agree with the previous poster. David is unfairly removing information about the Horace Mann School (among the most academically elite high schools in the country). I understand many of his issues, such as statements full of POV, such as the HM Model UN team is "the best in the country." Yet under the "recognition" section, he continues to remove information about high admit rates to top liberal arts schools such as Swarthmore, Amherst, and Vassar, leaving in only information about Harvard, Yale and Princeton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.146.202 (talk • contribs)

So you think subjective comments should remain. If you look at the history, I was deleting yale and harvard and princeon too, but gave up due the persistence of the POV poster. Are you saying I should be more consistent? I will be happy to oblige. David D. (Talk) 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks like an edit conflict

Hi- all I did on the discussion page was add a template unsigned. I didn't get an edit conflict message but it looks like there was a giant one as you were editing at the same time. I didn't remove any discussion, but the unnannounced edit conflit must have. Sorry about that. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Looking at your previous edits it seemed that something strange was occuring. David D. (Talk) 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I will be editing the article "Kent Hovind" several times a day from now on. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Thanks Re: Horace Mann

I saw your change to "many prestigious universities." Very good. I added "many prestigious colleges and universities" to cover places like Amherst and Vassar that are very highly ranked and competitive, but still considered colleges. Much better, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.18.249 (talk • contribs)

Horace Mann

I understand that some people have been calling for the removal of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale from the recognition section. However, these are the only schools the ranking pays attention to. Writing that the article speaks about "good colleges and universities" is simply wrong. We need to get the POV out of this article by sticking to objective facts as much as possible. The WSJ article was about Ivy League Schools plus Pomona, Stanford & Duke minus Columbia, I guess if you want that included it can go in there as well, but again just saying "good colleges and universities" is imprecise for the WSJ and flat out wrong for the Worth. We shouldn't be removing HYP just because someone wants it removed.

- Barrington Carter

Some more of my thoughts on your edits

What led you to edit the Horace Mann article? Without trying to sound like an asshole, I don't think many of your edits have been helpful. I'm sure, however, that if I tried to edit things I didn't know anything about on your high school's page I'd sound like an idiot too. But I'd ask that before you edit the page again you go ahead to the website: www.Horacemann.org, read up on HM on the internet, and read "Horace Mann, a History" before you edit again. This isn't meant to be personal, I'm going to be posting it to everyone else who has been making unhelpful contributions due to their lack of knowledge. I don't insist that everyone who edit be an alum, but I think it's fair to ask that those who edit for substance know something about what they are talking about.

Respectfully submitted, Barrington Carter

I responded to your comments on the HM talk page. The reason the page came to be on my watch list is that editors try to turn it into a PR slot for HM or try to add information that is no more than gossip. Proably Dalton alumni. David D. (Talk) 05:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive contribution

Thank you for your contribution to the Horace Mann article. I'm glad to see you're coming to see how great Wikipedia can be if people edit without using POV and stick to the facts instead of writing down their opinions. 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)~GreatBarrington

Wow, you mean we agree on something!!! Good progress. David D. (Talk) 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrington

Applause on the progress with GB. How did you know it was theblacklarl? Just my curiosity. I don't know who this guy thinks he is, but wow. I think we can dub him a Wikimenace. Wikster72 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your question, I think this involves a group of people that know each other well or they are they same editor. I'm not sure which it is. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon IP and Barrington himself have changed the sockpuppet notice on User:GreatBarrington to imply that only a few editors believe that this is sockpuppetry. I can't revert the page again without breaking 3RR, so would appreciate you taking a look at the page. --Malthusian (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that GB found a good citation for one of his points on the HM page. I sense and hope that this is a turning point that might see some constructive editing from this contributor. I think the points made here are appropriate and show a sign of maturity that should be encouraged. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

I got done a good bit of what needed to be done; it stills needs a lot of rewriting -- the music section makes no sense, the part about abstract thinking is too abstract to make sense, the trade sctions needs to be reduced, the body imager section needs to go... (ah, maybe my standards are too high).

What Sam realy wants is something that starts, "Humans were endowed by God with upright walking to distinguish them above the other animals, speech so that they might praise Him...' F that. Jim62sch 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Jim62sch Talk (Since I made this edit we have seen one edit from the previously active group whom identify more with spirt than body. Is this the raging calm before the storm? Or the mediatation that leads to paradise? David D. (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Could be either. I'm surprised he never responded to my Aquinas statement. I suppose we'll see how it goes. I added my thoughts on structure, feel free to comment, trash it, redo it, etc. Jim62sch 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are busy. I was asked to contact all the spirituality wiki-projects (which i still might if you guys don't start seeking compromise) but decided I could handle things by myself... while studying for mid-terms, mind you! As per Aquinas, the comment didn't merit response. Aggressive ignorance is best ignored, not confronted. Those who refuse the truth are apt to learn more from osmosis than from debate. Sam Spade 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what do you mean by refuse the truth? Isn't that a bit subjective with regard to spirituality? Is the truth that the Summa Theologiae proves the existence of a Catholic God? If so, does that mean that Christians who are not Cathloic are false? What of other religions, theirs are not a truth? Do you see the POV with that statement? David D. (Talk) 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam you know well i have made an honest effort to compromise in the past. Now, though, you are not stating your objections except to revert. Your last reverts carried along many typographical errors too. It takes many to have a discussion and i don't understand why you wish to hang on to the old version when it was not a vastly superior article. There is definteluy room to make it more readable. David D. (Talk) 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old version was a vastly superior article. Sorry about the typo's being restored or whatever, but their were bigger fish to fry, what with the hatchetjob on what had recently become afeatured article. Sam Spade 23:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Chuck Hastings

Gastrich is back making edits, but won't address questions on his identity. Arbustoo 07:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Gastrich sends "Chuck" an invite...Gastrich disappears...and "Chuck" shows up...why is it that Clark is never around when we see Superm...uhhh, never mind. - WarriorScribe 07:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Chuck edits in the morning (Sydney) whereas Gastrich edits late at night (CA). How convenient. (eyes rolling) David D. (Talk) 07:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as funny when they "talk" to each other. Of course, it's okay if you talk to yourself...it's okay if you answer yourself...but if you lose an argument with yourself, you might have issues. I wonder if they send each other emails, you know, like "Fraud Buster" and Gastrich did? - WarriorScribe 07:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Hey. I started a wikiproject on pro golfers. Even though this may not be your expertise, it would be a great help if you lend a hand in creating an infobox. The project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Golfers. Thanks Wikster72 23:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikster, I'm not really into golf but I got a template started. I think you'll find it a useful starting point for future growth. Good luck with your project. David D. (Talk) 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney

You voted "Merge to Internet slang". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MB:DEO

David, thank you for your MB:DEO. agapetos_angel 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bats, bible

Every single "problem" with the Bible has an apologist "explanation" (for bats: [1])- it's pointless trying to point out problems, since they just spew off in an endless round of weak arguments (like the Giants). I think for the SAB, it's better to treat it as an annotation of the KJV, and nothing more. MickWest 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I though they cliamed the KJV is inerrent too? That makes these harmonisations very disingenuous. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a subset, the King_James_Only movement, Ken is not one of those, and will not hesitate to explain away anything as "poor exegesis". MickWest 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see, except Wells does not look at the greek so really his argument is null. He really should just AfD it and be done if he feels so strongly that it is poor scholarship. If it is kept he will have to move on. His sarcastic comments are a bit diconcerting. i.e. laden with POV. Do you have a long history with him? I can't figure out if he is trolliming or actually might listen to compromise. David D. (Talk) 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a long history with him. Compromise is possible, but VERY hard to come by, essentially impossible. He's quite adept at digging up obscure "facts", but does NOT listen very well at all. MickWest 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic's Annotated Bible: nPOV tag and suggested next step

It is clear that, once again, Gastrich and his sock and meat puppets are engaging in edit wars with other participants at Wikipedia. This is a fairly obvious means that he can and will use to "get back" at the site, the admins, and the editors, whom he thinks have wronged him (see the AfC and the arbitration pages). As a response, I added the nPOV tag last night, and given the events since, I recommend that the page be locked. While I have little doubt that Gastrich enjoys these rather juvenile games that tie up editor time, I also think that most of the others involved would rather be doing other things. - WarriorScribe 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He strikes again, 4 puppets on the LBU article, so far. Arbustoo 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to keep up. David D. (Talk) 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich

Thanks for helping to clean up the sock-induced mess on those various userpages. The actions of this man are getting despicable. --Cyde Weys 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU part two

Similiar to what happened at the LBU page, watch Hyles-Anderson College. There are some POV forks, ect. Arbustoo 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Arbustoo 03:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Gastrich's having fun with socks. Arbusto 08:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elite

Since we're running 3:0 against "elite" in the intro of Horace Mann School (New York City), would you mind going ahead and changing it? If I do it myself, I'll get blamed for violating the three revert rule. --Dystopos 20:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science

"... [W]here are the scientists that are [actively] doing research rather than rehashing the old ideas?" - Daycd in a recent CS edit.

How about [2] ? Dan Watts 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, i looked at the web site although it is not clear what types of research they are doing. For example, they have an SEM and telescope but they seem to be more for educational purposes than research. I did see they are counting meteors as well as modelling stalagtite growth. Both of these could be considered science but where is the creation part? Is this all about proving a young earth? If so, I will admit that they are at least trying to test a hypothesis. Certainly this is a repeat of scientific research that has been done by other astronomers and geololgists. Are they challenging the data that has been collected before? Is there any evidence that the previous publications are wrong? David D. (Talk) 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daycd. Yes, most of this is all about proving a young earth. I am not sure that challenging data is an accurate assessment as challenging assumptions and conclusions.

Stalactite growth: [3]

Meteor origins theory: [4]

Dan Watts 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopos

Hello---I'd like to request your assistance with this user. I am a high school student who has been editing the page of my high school, Horace Mann School in NYC. The school was clearly identified as being elite in a NY Times article, and all this user has been doing is disparaging the NY Times. Can you please intervene? You seem to have some power/respect around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AznNYCer212 (talk • contribs)

Re: power/respect, yea right, I wish. Did you notice that i agreed with Dystopos on the HM talk page? I agree it is an elite school but I don't think that the NY times article cited is good enough. Besides it is not necessary to bestow elitness on any school.. Wikipedia's role is to describe the school, its history and what it has to offer. It is the reader who needs to decide if it is elite based on the information that we provide. Elite is a very subjective term and quite inappropriate for wikipedia articles. I am interested why you feel it is so important to add this to the article? David D. (Talk) 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is supposed to provide information. Part of the information about Horace Mann is that it's elite. If you want to use the word prestigious, that would work as well. Even so, this really is the truth. I mean, look up elite in a dictionary, and you will see that HM fits the bill quite well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AznNYCer212 (talk • contribs)

I agree HM is elite. I expect Dystopos will also agree. The problem is that it does not fit the NPOV style of the encylopedia. The way that objective editors view the description 'elite' is as an opinion not as information. The article already documents that HM is in the top ten schools in the country. Does this not say it all? David D. (Talk) 17:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure as to how the fact that the article documents the fact that HM is in the top ten schools in the country should mean that the school shouldn't be listed as elite. Shouldn't the question be just whether or not the school is elite? I think there is concensus here that HM is an elite school. And there is an objective meaning of elite, which HM fits...

Kansas City standard

I think the BYTE magazine cover should be at the top of the page.

I added some more details on the Kansas City standard but the page need more editing.

Michael Holley User:Swtpc6800

Thanks

David, thanks for the welcome. There are some realists… but very few! I will be sure to come here if I've got any questions. Thanks ~ Fbv65edel 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Lagat and Bekele at the Millrose by any chance? --you

'Fraid I didn't; I follow national running very little like many other Americans :-(. I am interested in doing it, though – I went undefeated in Middle Division Cross-Country this year! Fbv65edel 03:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, keep up the running it's a great sport, especially cross country. Cross country in NYC? David D. (Talk) 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... would you mind telling me how to revert to a certain edit? Thanks. Fbv65edel 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Sounds good. -Fbv65edel 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velkommen til Heimdal

yes indeed, i am a Norwegian and live near Heimdal in the city of Trondheim.

I don't do much work on the english wikipages, but I do have a userpage on Norwegian Wikipedia.

--Vindheim 23:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! wrong user page. Soory about that. --Vindheim 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stillman

What are you gonna do, call the cops. Im sure they will want to waste their time.

?? David D. (Talk) 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Don't mess with my user page. I'm nobody's puppet, Freakboy. --Jack White1 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page User: Jack White1 wrote [5] "here is the information I added" then quoted something added to the Cornuke article, which included the conference article-link that was a deleted and a Gastrich link. The problem, though, is "Jack White1" is the sock puppet stalking the Hovind article and the addition Jack was referring to was at the Cornuke article. That's two confirmed puppets in the midst of the AfD. Arbusto 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Where did you get this idea that I am a sockpuppet? I see I'm not the only victim of your bad judgement (see above). If you keep this up, you'll have an RfC just like Arubstoo. Cheers, Joshua39215 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're no sockpuppet you must be a meat puppet since no new user gets involved in these types of issues off the bat. Either way your edits are unlikely to be welcome due to Gastrich's actions in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and intimidate me. Do you know what OBVIOUSLY isn't welcome here? You calling people sockpuppets on their user pages because you don't like what they're saying. That's definitely not welcome here. So, if you want an RfC for your behavior, keep it up, mate. Chhers, Joshua39215 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening a RfC? Sounds like you been there before? Arbusto 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to my super-skills: he's a sock puppet, mate. Arbusto 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RockGod

Hi, David,

I went ahead and removed the Gastrich sock template from User:RockGod, as the edit history is too dissimilar to Gastrich. It won't make a difference, as he's been indef blocked, but I thought I should let you know. If that's overstepping, I apologize. ;) Justin Eiler 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thats fine. It was the removal oif a tag from a known Jason sock that made me do it. Also Jason's well known problem with Catholics made me think Blair might be a Gastrich target. His immaturity has gone so low now that I am willing to bet anything. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"correct code"

I understand what you were trying to do, and thanks for that. However my point was I was trying to demonstrate how to use the template:userbox. Not straight html :P Seraphim 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see it already got reverted, sorry about that, my misunderstanding. I think your points are very strong with regard to banning templates is itself not really an issue if it is the categories that are a problem. i'm new to this debate so i am probably missing many of the nuances. Personaly I'm not a huge fan of them, at least the ones with political comments and lifestyle comments. David D. (Talk) 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jesus

Please gain a consensus on the talk page before any chnages, as we've had some heated exchange, have attempted compromises, and the article has recently been protected. Thanks...KHM03 22:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that any of your edit was bad...but just take a peek at the talk page and see what's been going on. KHM03 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read through it and even voted on the sentence for the second paragraph. I thought i was just doing a bit of clean up around the noise of the discussion. Nevertheless, thanks for the advice, I know these things can get heated at times and i don't want to walk in and get my head chopped off. David D. (Talk) 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

68.39.174.238 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trackandfield-stub

I started the sub-page during stub sorting as a means to keep track of stubs that I ran across which might generally fit within that stub category. You may feel free to add to it if you like. Once there are sufficient articles to warrant the creation of a new stub type, then we can create the stub category. To do that, we'll need at least 50 if not 100 articles in stub status that should be within that stub category, and preferably more. --Durin 13:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Thanks for your support on my talk page just now. If you want to deal with date links yourself, you may wish to use: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Caveat emptor. If the task is shared, people will stop suggesting that it is a personal matter. Best wishes. bobblewik 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no objection to people reinstating the removals on the articles they edit. What I have the objection to is mass-removals without checking whether the links make any sense in the first place, or if the editors on those particular articles object. It's a matter of preference - if the automated removals stop, I'll very gladly stop the mass-reverts. Ambi 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silky Sullivan

Thank you for your compliment! I've discovered I'm a bit of a fanatic about Silky, plus I'm beginning to love writing articles. Funny Cide, the racehorse Longfellow, adding to others. The help I'm getting often confuses me, but I learn something every time. Ki Longfellow 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis

What was the purpose of this edit? – Clockwork Soul 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I'm not sure how that happened? I thought I was going the other way i.e. removing it. David D. (Talk) 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was afraid that photosynthesis might really be gay. I had known it for years, and the thought had never had occured to me. No harm done. :) – Clockwork Soul 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, gay it is if you're in the tropics! Short for "going all year". I had another look. My probelm is I am so used to anon IP's vandalising, that when I saw the anon was associated with that edit I immediately assumed they must be adding it, not removing it. Obviously too much imbibing this end!!!! David D. (Talk) 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Gene structure.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gene structure.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help a user with an issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steak_and_Blowjob_Day shows a user getting blocked and accused of vandalism for wishing to retain a page in the Polish Wikipedia which was thrown out there and kept in the English Wikipedia.

Since you are a fair minded person who knows the ropes here, I thought you might be a good choice to arbitrate or at least advise in that situation. The guy knows good English. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for abritration has been filed against you

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe --Ben 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

human

Actually, I don't find the discussion tiresome. I find it fascinating. It is what I see as the sophistry, dishonesty and manipulativeness of some users that tees me off. Note the recent business with having my remarks deleted/refactored. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann

Thought you might be interested to see that the school's film review newsletter has spawned its on article... The Cinemann. --Dystopos 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the update, and thanks for the all the help on the HM page. David D. (Talk) 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

This would require that you also be part of the solution, rather than the problem. Egging on Quadell while discussion of a compromise was still ongoing was not being part of the solution. Ambi 02:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at Olympics

I think it looks a lot more organized and uncluttered than the old version did. I found the older version more difficult to comprehend, so I fixed it. Also, this way it is more similar to the 2006 Winter Olympics format for events in a sport. (See an example.) If you don't like this method, propose something else at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics. Thanks. Jfing ers88 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been problems with an anon IP contributor that insistes on adding flags in a way that makes the tables very busy. Personally, I don't like the flags but another format could be followed similar to the world championships. I'll check out the WikiProject Sports Olympics page. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Athletics at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. It has "my" format with the medal tables, but also a listing of all of the events at the top. I think that might not be a bad idea. Jfing ers88 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list at the top certainly improves the navigation. i think that is a good idea. David D. (Talk) 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's better than the standard table of contents, though? Those are both valid options, but the TOC may be a bit too long vertically, whereas the list at the top provides all of the links in a small vertical space. Jfing ers88 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely better than the standard table of contents. If i was doing it i would simplify it as below. There is no need to seperate the mens and womens events in the TOC if they are next to each other in the page. Just my 2 cents. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 m | Sprint hurdles | 200 m | 400 m | 400 m hurdles |

100 m

Men

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Asafa Powell (JAM)	10.03 secs
Silver	Olusoji Fasuba (NGR)	10.11 secs
Bronze	Marc Burns (TRI)	10.17 secs

Women

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Sheri-Ann Brooks (JAM)	11.19 secs
Silver	Geraldine Pillay (RSA\|}	11.31 secs
Bronze	Delphine Atangana (CMR)	11.39 secs

hurdles

110m hurdles, men

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Maurice Wignall (JAM)	13.26 secs
Silver	Chris Baillie (SCO)	13.61 secs
Bronze	Andrew Turner (ENG)	13.62 secs

100m hurdles, women

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Brigitte Foster-Hylton (JAM)	12.75 secs
Silver	Angela Whyte (CAN)	12.94 secs
Bronze	Lacena Golding-Clarke (JAM)	13.00 secs

200 m

Men

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Omar Brown (JAM)	20.47 secs
Silver	Stéphane Buckland (MRI)	20.47 secs
Bronze	Chris Williams (JAM)	20.52 secs

Women

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Sherone Simpson (JAM)	22.59 secs
Silver	Veronica Campbell (JAM)	22.72 secs
Bronze	Geraldine Pillay (RSA)	22.92 secs

400 m

Men

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	John Steffensen (AUS)	44.73 secs
Silver	Alleyne Francique (GRN)	45.09 secs
Bronze	Jermaine Gonzales (JAM)	45.16 secs

Women

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Christine Ohuruogu (ENG)	50.28 secs
Silver	Tonique Williams-Darling (BAH)	50.76 secs
Bronze	Novlene Williams (JAM)	51.12 secs

400 m hurdles

Men

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	L.J. van Zyl (RSA)	48.05 secs
Silver	Alwyn Myburgh (RSA)	48.23 secs
Bronze	Kemel Thompson (JAM)	48.65 secs

Women

Medal	Athlete	Time
Gold	Jana Pittman (AUS)	53.82 secs
Silver	Natasha Danvers Smith (ENG)	55.17 secs
Bronze	Lee McConnell (SCO)	55.25 secs

Horace Mann tennis

-The information in the article is incorrect. Santa Barbara placed sixth, not fifth. Horace Mann defeated them 5-4 in the 5th/6th place match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsbang (talk • contribs)

In that case is there a better source for the info? David D. (Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User vandalizing a page

Hey David, there's a user (User:72.129.123.139) who, for the second time now, has vandalized the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) page by moving cast members to the wrong place, without citing anything, etc. What should I do? Is there a template or a friendly message I can leave him or her? Who do I alert? TIA… --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a hard call. i have had the experience of a anon doing similar things. i kept reverting back and he carried on doing his random edits. The biggest problem is that he never entered into any dialog with respect to his edits. Another problem with anon users is they are often on dynamic IP's so even a block is useless. i suggest you just keep reverting. You could invite him/her to discus on the talk page but chances are they will ignore such requests. i think you are completely justified in reverting when they are unwilling to discuss the changes. Sorry to hear you have this problem as it can be very frustrating. Just hang in there an hopefully they will get bored. David D. (Talk) 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see if it happens again and if it does I'll write on their talk page, which is currently an ugly red link. :-) --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Referral

I have taken you to the arbitration committee. You can find the request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbustoo, Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.. Pooua 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I wasn't sure if you noticed, but modified your post by breaking into sections[6]. I think its vandalism because you can take people's sentences out of context and really mess with the meaning.Arbusto 04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nothing was deleted. If you look closely you'll see that Pooua replies to each point, so much of the text gets discipated. The real problem is that Pooua is not indenting so it makes it unclear who wrote which section. i have reformated to try and make it read more clearly. David D. (Talk) 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i misread your original comment. I just noticed that you were not claiming deletion but reformatting. I think this is since Pooua is a new user. Give him/her a week or two to get used to the formatting issues. i see from the Hyles talk page that s/he is already getting better. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]