User talk:DavidWBrooks/2017 archive
Seasteading
Hi David,
Regarding your recent reversion of my edit, you don't point to any reason for reverting other than your opinion "they don't really belong in an article". Motivations for seasteading are relevant to the reader, and their motivations are properly cited in a secondary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasch (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- That article doesn't quote or reference anybody saying it - it's just a thrown-out line by the writer. You might say they hope to create a place to flee as climate change kills the world's poor, too, but that's not referenced, either. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the article to add another reference which directly attributes their motivations to them. BTW, we seem to be in an edit war that perhaps might be better addressed if we spoke live. May I give you a call? Or alternatively, you can call me at 650 773 6419.
Crasch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- No thanks - although discussions like this are always better on the article page, rather than any user's page. Two edits hardly makes a war, however. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on Milford granite columns on the treasury building
The Treasury's history website mentioned that the freestone columns had been replaced with granite but didn't give a source for that granite (in contrast to the later specification that the granite for columns on the other wings came from Dix Island, Maine). —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Since I believe I was the person who wrote that tidbit many years ago, I felt obligated. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I reworked the edit by Cessna315 and added it at the end of the History section. The news on DWC's bankruptcy is covered by the citations already on the page. I had heard that the bankruptcy trustee rejected multiple bids by SNHU. I have added a citation from the SNHU website that they have started building a new aviation science/technology building in lieu of buying the DWC campus. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
hi
Hi David! Xavi Domingo 1234512345 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The Mandela Effect
In case you're still wondering, it goes a little something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see the information / reverences found in following URL:
mustache vs. moustache
I beg to differ.
1. No harm in calling people's attention to something that might be of interest to them. 2. It doesn't take up much space.
Mondegreens and Zuiderzee
David, You were correct in removing the part about the Zuiderzee. I added the example of the Golden Vanity/Sweet Trinity song some time ago, but yesterday, as I was re-reading it, I thought it would be the case that most of *our* readers would be just as unfamiliar with the 'lowland sea' as Appalachian singers were, so I proceeded to research it. I was not able to find anything useful on the web. It is thought that, since one of earliest known versions of the song referenced Sir Walter Raleigh and the Netherlands, the song might refer to the historical sea Battle of Gravelines. But, honestly, I was stretching to mention any particular body of water. Ah, well! Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Mass MoCA
not super sure where to add this, but the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art opened an expansion this weekend (130,000 sq ft) bringing the total to approx 230,000 sq ft. Would you mind helping me edit that page? Also it would bring Mass MoCA to the 4th biggest art museum in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:F6C3:4D00:BCE5:9AB1:14B3:CC6E (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
RE: Carrie Nation
Hi. I did not notice the edit you made while I was editing at the same time. I have reverted it because a woman's maiden name has traditionally been included in the lede, although if some consensus to the contrary has emerged, I will be happy to review it. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
War between ADB FlashKit and DavidWBrooks
Why did you reverted this one? Continue reverting can lead to privileges removal. Talk to your problem solver to prevent from reverting. ADB FlashKit (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Starting of editing war from Acme Corporation
Hello! and welcome to the Wikipedia! I had ignoring this reverting of your redundancy of your page called Acme Corporation. Please don't do that. I had avoid this one. Here it's the list to add this:
 | The Acme Scrap Metal in Milo Murphy's Law appeared |
Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
| Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Please see Iceland's talk page
Talk:Iceland#The_back_.26_forth_minor_edit_war_about_what_continent_Iceland_is_in.2C_and_what_a_continent_is is relevant to your interests. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Reverting "One Kohl" (ein Kohl)
Hi DavidWBrooks, you have reverted my edit. The "Unit" Kohl is sometimes special because it's known primary in Germany and like several other special units it's not widely documented because it was mainly used in political satire in the 80ies. It's not even simple to find references for such kind of unit, but nearly every person older than 40 years in germany nows the unit :-) Best regards --Denalos (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I"m sure that's true, but the item really needs a reference - this is the kind of article that attract lots of joking and lets-make-wikipedia-look-stupid fake additions, often trying to ridicule a politician. We can't, as you know, just accept an editor's assurances that something is real or well known. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
She Loves You
Hi David. Thanks for your contributions to the article. I'm not trying to be too picky, but don't you think it is unsourced in the article that "several well-known musicians released entire albums of Beatles covers"? Wouldn't "several" mean more than Mary Wells and the Chipmunks? Even if other albums or articles referring to them were linked in a footnote that would back up the claim. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- It just occurred to me: would it work to pipelink the statement to List of cover versions of Beatles songs? That list has more than "entire albums of Beatles covers", but it's obvious to anyone who wants to scroll through the list that there are several albums with only Beatles songs. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- There's also Brenda Lee - that's three. Several!
- What's significant about this is not that cover versions of the song were recorded, but that well-established recording stars (Brenda Lee and Mary Wells were big stars at the time, and the Chipmunks had recorded several albums, amazingly) did entire records of Beatles covers. Nobody did that for the Stones or Dave Clark 5 or Beach Boys or other groups of the time - so it's a real sign of the impact that the Beatles had for a couple of years. That's the reason to list them, I think: to get across to readers the astonishing impact they had - not just as part of a List of cover versions of Beatles songs. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you say, but I also think it adds to the explanation of their impact to let the reader know that more than those three you mention (in fact, an enormous number) did covers, some doing entire albums of covers in addition to those three. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Kinks pop
You wrote the hidden note to support both rock and pop genres in the infobox. The article text also supports both rock and pop. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Your revert removed valid edits. Please don't do this without reviewing changes in the whole article. Also, please do not remove citation tags without addressing the issues. The article is very long, with lots of sections, nobody will remembre the tag at the top. Also, different languages are viewed/edited by different wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Reverting my edits
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my response to an edit request made at Talk:XXXX despite my response being a valid edit. In the future please don't do this without giving a reason why. Thanks. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I did - the reason is in the Edit Summary field. Are you aware of how that works? It can be confusing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, you are talking about the Talk page, not the article page. Ignore my response. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I am talking about the talk page SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm baffled by my edit, as well. I may have hit the wrong button and moved on without checking to see what I had done; my apologies. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's all good. Have a good day/night :) SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm baffled by my edit, as well. I may have hit the wrong button and moved on without checking to see what I had done; my apologies. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
On that topic, I don't mind thanking you for reverting my addition to the "humorous units of measurement" page - I was unsure whether it would or would not meet the normal standards, so I "tested the waters"... but I wonder whether the normal standards should apply to a unit of humour on a page about humorous units, a term that has been said to be a unit by multiple people, including university types (admittedly in jest) - so it is at least "somewhat notable" - shouldn't the the criterion for inclusion be more based on whether it a unit that is funny? (And, given that it was a play on the name "Spike Milligan - i.e. milliGoon, I think it is! :-) Also: I don't think there is any competing unit of funniness so attested (except, perhaps, a standardised test based on the amount of laughter for a comedy compared with a particular Mr Magoo cartoon... but that doesn't have any named unit as far as I know). Maitchy (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- The same standards should *definitely* apply, or else the page would turn into 1000 "funny" things made up by people - like a bad reddit thread. This is an issue in other pages that deal with humorous topics, like mathematical joke - you've got to be careful or they turn into lists "hey, I thought of another one!" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, DavidWBrooks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Request for discussion at Talk:Vermont
Thank you for your interest in editing the article, Vermont. Could you look in on a question on the talk page at Talk:Vermont#Choice of verbiage and give your thoughts and opinion? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of List of floating islands in fiction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of floating islands in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of floating islands in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)