User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 5

References at Republic of Texas

Hi David, I think we should use inline citations at Republic of Texas, using the ref tags. It makes it easier to see what sources say what --AW 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Credentials debate

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Credentials are useless#I hold a Ph.D..2C you should read my c.v.. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidwr

Thank you, Davidwr. I see you are relatively new here. In that case, I thank you for discussing the matter we have been in such a calm, cool, logical manner. It is much appreciated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On a "Further reading" section in the Tuskegee Airmen

Daidwr, my concern over even having a "further reading section at all" is that if the article is based on research, the relevant sources should already have been part of the references. As an academic librarian, I find that there has been a confusing departure in bibliographic referencing protocols in the entire Wikipedia format.

If you are citing reference sources, these are normally listed as a footnote or endnote. Since there is no provision for footnoting, then the endnote is the only option. Yet the Wikipedia guidelines do not refer to an endnote, rather editors have incorporated a "notes" section after the main body of text. Then on top of the notes section is another section called "references" which would normally be called a "bibliography" in research and academic writing which Wikipedia strives to emulate. There is a provision for separate notes and references but most Wikipedia editors follow a format that combines the two lists, which is fine since the notes and referenced sources can be seen in relation to each other in a "tight" format.

Now on top of all of this is the "Further reading" (or viewing, or listening, etc.) section which allows editors to provide a completely new listing of sources. First, when there is no provision for individual research or "first-hand" commentary, why is there a listing of personal favourites or "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers?" If these sources were so important, why were they not used for research in the first place?

Then to cap off the whole "sloppy mess" is the over-arching guidelines that state: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research." Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.

  • Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
  • Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
  • Wikipedia has an established code of conduct and respect.

That Davidwr, is why I usually do not have a "Further reading" section in my edits. It is confusing enough to have a "references" page, why introduce more references? Now don't get me started on the mess over using an APA bibliographic style guide over the usual MLA guide and then those %4#2*& "templates." That sums up my concerns over the bibliographical sourcing that is recommended by Wikipedia. IMHO Bzuk 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I did some digging and found Wikipedia:Citing_sources which proved very helpful. Davidwr 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you find article?

How did you find my newly created article on the Astronaut Hall of Fame? I was surprised that nobody wrote such an article. I was also surprised on how you found it. Is there a list of new articles? I'm a new user so I don't know all the ins and outs.Feddhicks 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the new inductees to the new category I'm creating. I wanted to tie it in with the existing page. Davidwr 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS encryption key controversy

about your edits to AACS encryption key controversy. 1: isn't this information in the article already ? 2: Does it really need to be called "in popular culture" ???? --TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#New_section: Impact on popular culture Davidwr 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig revert

No problem.  :) It was an accident, actually- meant to revert something else but my laptop pointer slipped. Diagonalfish 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion


Image:Presa de decissions.png

It is an empty description page that was mistakenly created for a Commons-hosted image. The actual image won't be deleted. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my misunderstanding. davidwr 09f9 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Glenn — I believe you are mistaken

I believe you are citing the wrong editor in your note on my talk page and on the John Glenn talk page. The edit that I made is here — where I reverted vandalism (calling John Glenn "Can't Read"). The edit following mine [2], by 71.244.140.70, where it was changed to "magnetic ***" in the body of the article is probably the one you are referring to. Your subsequent reversion was back to mine.

I would appeciate it if you would correct this error (attributing the reversion to me) both on the John Glenn talk page and on my talk page.

ERcheck (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. You have my sincerest apologies. davidwr 09f9 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the correction. On another note, I noticed that your colorful signature does not contain an internal link to your user page nor your user talk page. (See WP:Signature#Internal_links). In the standard signature, rendered by ~~~~ , a link to one's userpage is added. This is helpful if an editor wants to respond to you. When I wanted to respond to your message on my talk page, it required that I go to my page history to link back to you. It would be helpful if you would add such to your signature. It wouldn't prevent a colorful signature. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. davidwr 09f9(talk) 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Astronaut Hall of Fame help. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one looking at it!Feddhicks 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the Supreme Court stub concept on its talk page

If you are discussing my bot proposal of May 19, please discuss it on its talk page, User_talk:Davidwr/sandbox_SupremeCourt. davidwr 09f9(talk) 20:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Given the anon user's string of contributions adding the same external link to multiple articles, I considered the addition of the link to be spam. If, after examining the information contained at the website, you find it would be a useful, unique resource, feel free to add it back to the SCOTUS project's page. · jersyko talk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I missed the fact that it was a pay site. That plus anonymity/lack of accountability plus mass seeding = spam even if it is useful. davidwr 09f9(talk) 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Can you keep an eye on Dixie High School (Utah)?

Dixie High School (Utah) has been the subject of a lot of vandalism and "juvenile" edits lately. It would be great if an actual student watched the page and reverted the vandalism. davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aporras22"

--Aporras22 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I am a current student at Dixie High I have put this page on my watchlist and I have frequently been fixing the vandalism that has been going on. I try to go on about once every one to two weeks to make sure nothing has been vandalized but ever since I've started watching it nothing has seemed to change.


Thanks for the TexShare thanks!

Hello David. Thanks for your interest in the TexShare library consortium and for your initial stem article. We appreciate it. By the way, are you the author of the Catalogablog site? The blog is quite popular among librarians. Mikea2 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I have tried and failed to find a clearly-free-use image of the poppy quarter. If you or anyone else finds one please replace my image. davidwr (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mooted, another image is available on the commons.

Even though it has no incoming links, I think it's plausible that someone might type this in looking for this school. If you feel strongly about it, list the redirect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several Young Junior High schools in the USA, so the odds are in fact that it would cause harm in that respect. However, it is over a year old and might break external links. davidwr (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahia

Thank you, I have corrected it yet! Opinoso 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Prodding Paul Davidoff

Nope, no objections. As I recall the anon requester, back when Wikipedia:Articles for creation was new, promised to expand the article once it was created, but obviously didn't. I don't know anything more about it than what's there; good luck on your research, but if you don't think it belongs here, so be it. Thank you very much for the polite note, however; a little thoughtfulness goes a long way.  :) — Catherine\talk 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa


Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate it. :) --GrooveDog (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Five-A Barnstar Template

Reply to [6]

I uploaded the higher-res version as requested. Good thinking! As a note, I'm perfectly fine with the license you chose - it's your right to choose whatever as long as it's compatible with the original. Hersfold (talk/work) 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That's funny. Ok, I'll keep an eye on that. Just so you know, I've got a higher resolution version of your AFC barnstar if you want it. Hersfold (talk/work) 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFC Drive Rewards

Hey there.

Just to keep in mind, we are NOT going to give out the awards until the drive ends. This will make it much easier for me to keep track of at the end. I noticed that you had "awarded" them to Hersfold and Counterpart0. Thanks for your help, but don't give out the awards quite yet. GrooveDog (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!
 

We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!

First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.

Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.

Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.

And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.

Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog.

Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (Owner)

AFC Barnstar

Just noticed you're well over the 100 reviewed limit, so here is your barnstar. Many congratulations. Theone00 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:AFC Backlog

Thanks for reminding me. I've actually made a few; I just forgot to update the count. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


I didn't know that! (about the 1,000 artical). Cheers for telling me. 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor

Greetings,

I'm e-mailing you to let you know that I plan to try again with my article., Most ancient common ancestor. I realize that ideas such as the Earth is round often meet with popular resistance, but ultimately prove correct. It took Barbara McClintock some 30 years before experts realized that she was right. I find it grossly unfair that the article was deleted before I had a chance to comment on it. Perhaps more disturbing, however, is that those who voted for deletion did so after the article was gutted by Fred Hsu, who nominated it for deletion.

Let me say that there was also a misunderstanding. I realize that if we are talking intra-speciation, then our most ancient common ancestor might be a 'sponge.' But I was talking within-species. The idea is that, if humans evolved from multiple origins (as hypothesized in the multiregional hypothesis) and these later populations intermixed, then there would come a point in time when a first (or most ancient) common ancestor would emerge. Even if the idea is not totally right, to think that a single chimp-ancestor mutated into a 'human' in a single step is complete and utter bunk.Ryoung122 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Davidwr, before you reply, please see what Ryoung122 wrote on my talk page. I hope he fixed the screwed-up text blocks he left. Fred Hsu 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122, I strongly recommend you find a related article and expand it. Be sure cite heavily and avoid anything that sounds like original research, or it's likely to be tagged {{fact}} then reverted. If you write a similar article with the same topic, you will likely lose any resulting AFD and find the name salted or the page replaced with a protected redirect to prevent recreation. If you want a deletion review, you can request one. Deletion reviews are typically granted if there is a procedural issue. If you were away from Wikipedia during most of the AFD period, that might qualify. If you emailed me, the mail has not yet arrived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am dumbfounded by what Ryoung122 is producing. I wish I could watch his 'contributions' page. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. I can't believe he quoted what I just wrote on my talk page as supporting evidence for his now-deleted article. I am speechless. Fred Hsu 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122's contributions page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. I mean: put that contributions page in my watch list... Fred Hsu 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the argument here...I was away and did not have a chance to explain or argue my position; therefore I am requesting a 'deletion review'...either a restoration or a re-vote.Ryoung122 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 2

I have started MORE THAN 54 articles and so far, only ONE has been deleted. I suppose that willow oak was a much less controversial topic than human origins, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_oak

I'm glad to see that Fred Hsu is dumbfounded, because people like that think they know everything, just like Saul thought persecuting Christians was the right thing to do. Later, he changed his mind. Perhaps Mr. Hsu needs to read Paul Baltes's work on wisdom. Intelligence isn't everything; being open-minded and able to consider other points of view are important. That doesn't mean that we should corrupt things the way that Time Magazine sells out to religion at Christmas time. That does mean that we don't know as much about the human genome or evolution or speciation as we think we know. The Linnean system of nomenclature has recently strained as it became increasingly apparent that it is, at best, an artificial model which imperfectly fits the reality of biology. For a more real assessment, I suggest reading this:

http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/

Have a good day.Ryoung122 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw man, anyone? Fred Hsu 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

most ancient common ancestor part 3

This is not an archive. The discussion is active. This discussion is collapsed due to sheer length.