 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:DavidOaks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
David, I've been following your contributions, am aware of your background and would much appreciate some input on the gladiator copyedit. I've posted the underlying issues on the talk page.
The first four paras are (more or less) now referenced. Some glaring omissions remain. In your opinion, are these sections already overloaded?
The rest of the article will have to receive similarly drastic attention.Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just got your message at my talk page. Much appreciated! You may have noticed, I've thrown caution to the winds. Bold's the word. And polite at all times, of course. Yup...Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (again, forgot to sign)
An article that you have been involved in editing, StyroHawk kite, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StyroHawk kite. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
believe it or not, IPs are permitted to blank their talk pages. they should not be reverted if they do so. cheers, –xeno (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read the wikipolicy referenced, and I don't think it's one of the better ones, but will abide. Thanks for the headsup. Of course they're permitted -- anybody can do anything they want. Deal is, this IP is high-vandalism, if not vandalism-only. DavidOaks (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A plea for your input. The article is now very long (the edit page tells me so). I don't see how it can be split without losing the flow. Any advice? Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- David, thanks so much for the supportive message on my talk-page. I feel I've rather lost sight of the wood for the trees - probably over-researched and too precious about it. As for the two sections with almost no inline citation - I can do little if anything about that. Maybe a couple of days off from it will help.
Haploidavey (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Enfield. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- No sir, you are the one with the history of edit-warring. I have complied with reasonable suggestions for placement and demonstrated conformity with guidelines for an edit that is thoroughly ref'd. DavidOaks (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Missouri. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This guy is now engaged in WP:Hounding. Readers of this page may evaluate his criticism in light of the way he communicates with other editors User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 1, his history of blocking for edit-warring, and the case for his being a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots/Archive: DavidOaks (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- i suggest gathering the WP:diffs of his incivility and other evidence and report it to administrators at WP:ani. you can search the ANI archives on the ANI page to see other situations he's been involved in. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BITE_of_a_newbie.2C_modifying_other_users.27_comments.2C_and_possible_racism_from_User:Nukes4Tots Theserialcomma (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey David, I notice you've put quite a bit of work into the Kirksville, Missouri page. As a native 'kirkatoid' I wanted to say thanks -- especially for eforts to control vandalism. I've made a few minor edits myself, and may do more in the future. Wanted to use you as a sounding board on a couple of items 1) possible transfer of John Cauthorn from the Kirksville 'notable citizens' sub-category to the Truman State Alumni listing. Other than attending college here, Mr. Cuathorn really didn't spend much time as a Kirksville citizen. He was born and raised in the Mexico, Missouri area. 2) When time allows I may rework the history section, moving some information to an enhanced Adair County, Missouri Wiki entry. It seems to me that as currently written some of the history, particularly early settlment at 'the cabins' would more logically belong there. Any thoughts you have on either of these questions would be appreciated. Thanks again. Sector001 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Sector 001! All of that seems very reasonable. That's the usual development of articles, that sections get written, expanded, until they get to be out of proportion to the main topic, and need to be fissioned off to their own articles or to others where they're more relevant. You just leave a tag like
- behind so the reader can follow. I've always thought that the Cabins incident figured too large in histories of Kirksville, as it's actually nearer Novinger than KV. Best, DavidOaks (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to simply edit-war to get your own way or can you be convinced to take the high ground? TruthIIPower (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked you to stop edit-warring. Do I need to ask again or do I need to get an administrator to ask you? TruthIIPower (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- David's actions can hardly be classified as edit-warring. Stop trying to push around new users. - Schrandit (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, and your actions aren't edit-warring either, right? Do go on. Tighten the noose. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
|
| This is for your efforts in the epic, 5 month long struggle against sockpuppeting-vandal Spotfixer/TruthIIPower. Schrandit (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
|
You reverted my edit to outhouse on doors. I live in an area where many people, including myself, don't have running water and rely on outhouses and/or honey buckets. Conservatively I'd say more than a quarter lack doors. The article seems to imply that doors are a necessary part. I can't speak for the rest of the world but I'd hazard to guess that in areas where outhouses are endemic doors are much less prevalent as they discourage ventilation. I'd also guess that people not used to outdoor plumbing assume doors are as necessary. Alas, guessing is not wiki. As for your comments about humans not having parts I have no fingers or thumbs, but ceased considering myself human long before I lost them. --Weetoddid (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Link please, usually it is because of a sourcing problem.
If you can source it fully (i.e full citation of not only the work but book/archive/website
where obtained)
then feel free to de-tag them
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Check the history...
- At the time it was tagged, it didn't have the citation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hated that section and was meaning to change it. Glad to see you did! Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
While criticism sections and headings aren't strictly forbidden, they are disfavored. See Template:Criticism section and the link therein indicating that it may be better to integrate the material in such sections. Mamalujo (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I think the article in question needs changing at this point -- I'm happy enough to label the section "views" -- but I don't think the policy applies; it really does list points of controversy (FB is by nautre a controversialist, in the ecclesiastical sense), and the listing does not consist of negative things people have said about him, so much as disputes he willingly engaged in. DavidOaks (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! I've noticed you have made many edits to the article for West Plains, Missouri. Recently, I took a detailed look at the article, and noticed it needs a rewrite. If it's no problem to you, I would appreciate it if you could help me out on the rewrite. I've already made a start over at my sandbox. If you're willing to help out, I'll give you more details later. Thanks so much! –Jonny T. 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead and WP:Be Bold! Best, DavidOaks (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just been looking at the Cupstone article and, although I am fairly knowledgeable about lithic artifacts, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. Moreover, the photo in the article and the photos on the website from which the article was created look more like omars to me than they do human made artifacts. At the very least the term "nutting stone" should be removed from the article; I really don't think whatever it is talking about is anything like what an archaeologist is talking about when using the term "nutter" or "nutting stone."
I really suggest eliminating this article altogether.
JPFay (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks -- there's considerable visible similarity to the omars (though the fish residues and orbital grindings, as well as association with fires and geometrical patterns mark cupstones as non-natural artifacts), and it's clear we need better images. I'll see what I can do. DavidOaks (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did some checking. There's an awful lot to be found out about cupstones (nutting stones, pitted cobbles) by a simple google search. A whole lot more than there is about omars...I really don't understand the suggestion that cupstone should be deleted. DavidOaks (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that whatever he is talking about and illustrating is not nutting stones. I don't really care about what is in the rest of the article other than the suggestion that he is illustrating nutting stones. So why not just leave that term out of the article?
JPFay (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because a review of the literature going back to the 1790s suggests that what he's got here are indeed the objects which have been called "nutting stones" (among other names) though the article makes it clear that the term is hyper-specific. Early texts specify that the impressions were sometimes extremely regular, varied in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm, irregularly distributed, and intedeterminable as to function (though that did not prevent speculation). Been looking at published illustrations, and some things which are authoritatively called "nutting stones" look exactly like this (and like omars) and others are clearly mortars; some were plainly produced by rotary actions, others by pecking. I think the cupstone article covers a class of artifact, and omars takes care of a natural phenomenon. Our trouble is that "nutting stone," however flawed the term, is well-established. I think it needs to lead to this article, though it should not be the title. DavidOaks (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a photo of a nutting stone (NutterPen759.pdf). I don't really want to make a big deal about this, but people who find omars are often very disappointed to find out that they are not archaeological artifacts. Or they try very hard to speculate about some use for them in antiquity. I think that is what the original cupstone article came very close to doing. I like the changes you made in it, and if you want to use nutting stone art, feel free. In any event, I will let you take care of it. Good working with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPFay (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is a request to move Amaretto to Amaretto (liqueur). See Talk:Amaretto. --Una Smith (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Makes sense! DavidOaks (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
"Rumspringa" is actually an old terminus for "herum springen". In Austrian slang it's also "herum hupfen" which menas "jumping around" or moving very quickly from one place to the other. Greetings from Vienna, APhilipp29 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2009 (CET)
Thanks for your message! Frohes neues Jahr und beste Grüße in die USA! APhilipp29 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey David. Apologies if my edits regarding Loren were too bold, that whole article seems full of peacockery and extraneous info and bothers the hell out of me. Your revert will stay; you're a more experienced editor than me. Happy New Year.
AlexHOUSE (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Removing requests for sources is never appropriate. We also don't want to require readers to have to go to other articles in order to find out if claims made in one article is properly sources. Please read WP:BLP. Woogee (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
How does that have anything to do with your removal of requests for sources? Woogee (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
