User talk:DavidWBrooks/2019 archive

Proposed renaming of Nantucket

Hi David, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new user - OK gesture talk page

Hello David, thanks for my corrections on the page.

. I found out an interesting observation of the OK gesture, why did you remove it from the Talk page? JoseEduardoTR (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NOTESSAY - "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article" - your observation about diving and the gesture was interesting, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. I understood. So, what was the difference between what I wrote and this? Wikipedia Talk: OK Gesture. "Don't look at my hole"?

That comment asked whether a particular usage should be included in the article; your essay seemed to be talking about how to react as a diver if the gesture is made. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. So, based on your understanding of the essay, what I wrote was about how to react as a diver if the gesture is made.

. Did you read it before deleting it? JoseEduardoTR (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having a great one!

Of course. Keep working at doing edits, though; wikipedia needs more editors.


ACME

hello there ! why did you delete my addition ? Eliran t (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What addition? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eliran t, interestingly enough, my text was also deleted by DavidWBrooks, which later was proved that he did an incorrect action, you can read it in the Teahouse. I deeply wish and desire that you can prove that what you did was right, too! – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliran's edit history says the only time I edited one of that account's articles was in 2013 - six years ago! Maybe he/she is just a really slow typist? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. JoseEduardoTR what you mean " prove that what you did was right" ? - I saw that movie.
2. "which later was proved that he did an incorrect action" - means that we can undelet it ? Eliran t (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eliran t, what edit are you talking about? You can undelete anything you want on wikipedia - it's edited by everybody - but if you undo an edit from six years ago you'll change everything that has happened to the article since then, as well. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you returned it - and I removed it for the reason that it doesn't meet the edit guidelines for the page: Don't add examples merely because they have something labelled Acme in them. Only use examples that specifically reference the Wile E. Coyote cartoon character, please. Otherwise the article would be a massive list of unrelated movie trivia. Please discuss it further on the talk page of the article, not here.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Long time no talk... I just intersected with your recent contributions because you recently edited Area code 603, which had been slightly vandalized by an IP user who then vandalized my watchlisted Upton, Massachusetts, my new home town. Small world, six degrees etc. How are you? David Brooks (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC) [edited][reply]

I never know whether to respond to comments like this on my talk page or the other person's talk page. I'll try it here: I'm still employed (https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/ et al), which is saying something in the newspaper business. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{ping|DavidBrooks}}; that always gets my attention and generally results in lighting up anyone's alert bell. Good to hear you're still journalisming. We moved back "home" to Mass after 20 years in the Pacific NW; still have ties there. David Brooks (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Elements (song)

re The Elements (song) and [1]: I disagree. The paragraph itself mentions alliteration, i.e., a rhyming form. Then saying more about regular rhyming forms, end rhyme, is to the point in there. More so since the elenments do have a name-ending pattern. And so to the article, which is about a song. Please reinstall my edit. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, talk be at Talk:The Elements (song). -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Webster College

I considered doing something like what you did, when I made my recent edit about Rivier, but the footnote only talks about 2018. What you wrote is true, in any case. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike-from-NH:That's always an issue with "so-and-so happened as of XXXX" entries in articles - how & when to update them. That is why I don't like them; they can end up misleading the reader if editors aren't on top of things. -DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the text needed (and will still need) updating was not my issue, but rather that the text now makes an assertion that the Nashua Telegraph did not, that the property is still in disuse, half a year later. I've reread the Telegraph article and don't see how to rephrase the Wikipedia article to get around this. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, the Nashua Telegraph has solved this problem for us. I've updated the reference. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works, thanks! Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreen

David,

Thanks again for cleaning up the article. I find that most people I talk to have never heard the word. I wonder if we could get it mentioned on the front page, maybe in the "Did you know?" section. Perhaps at Christmas time, with a mention of the Twelve Days "colley" -> "calling" birds transition (today I found a reference that shows diff. versions, one of which had "canary" birds). Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmlieberman: It's one of those words like portmanteau that some people just love but most people haven't heard of. (Personally I love "mondegreen", hate "portmanteau".)
I don't know what the process is for getting it on the front page; I've never participated in the internal workings of wikipedia like that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that DYK hooks are only allowed for new articles (< 7 days old) or articles that have achieved "good article" status within 7 days (see DYK rules[2]). I've been rather stymied/intimidated about trying to get an article to that level (that the article I most want to achieve good article status is the one on Frederick Douglass may be part of my problem), so I don't know if we can get there. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, Thanks for tidying the article up again. I agree, too many examples, some of them obscure. And, yes, I am guilty of bloating the article, too! Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McCollom Institute

Hi. I don't exactly doubt your edit to the lead of this page, I guess you have some local knowledge, but it does not come out of the sources I have been working on. A lead should not need citations because it is supposed to summarize the body of the article. I was just about to nominate this for DYK. If you have a reference for your lead, would you please add the information somewhere in the article, with a citation? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I see you are the compiler of the page you have referenced. That doesn't state any sources, and it contradicts the History of Mont Vernon of 1907, which says there was no school in 1900-1901, but it was then re-opened by the trustees and continued until 1906. I wonder if you may have got "McCollom Institute closes around 1900" from the Katrina Holman article? She does not give her sources. Do you have a source for "1901-1906 - Building operated as a public high school for Mont Vernon. Attendance never tops 20 and the cost proves too great"? Given the conflict, I have taken your addition out of the lead but added to the "History" section "A local source states that the building was used as a public high school in its final years." Regards, Moonraker (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: You raise good questions. I compiled that timeline close to a decade ago from a variety of sources, including the town histories and some material we have in the town museum, but don't remember details and will have to go back and recheck them. It's possible that I erred; I recall the turn of century period as being uncertain. I was not familiar with the Katrina Holman article, but there have been lots of local articles written about local history which aren't always totally accurate, as you probably know.
What do you think about my comment in the Talk that the article should really be about the building, not just the institute? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DavidWBrooks, many thanks. I hadn't seen that, but I'll copy my reply there. I should say the school is definitely notable in its own right, as indeed most high schools are, according to the guidelines of Wikiproject Schools. I don't think an article on one notable topic should be should be diverted onto another. If the building is also notable in its own right, there would be nothing to get in the way of a McCollom Building page. Hundreds of notable schools have occupied notable buildings, and there can be an article for both, if someone has the time to write them and there are reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Private/public high school

There is a clear separation now, but if we go back to the 19th and early 20th centuries I believe the edge gets more blurred, as it was normal for high schools to charge fees, and more were run by independent trustees on behalf of their towns and cities. I can't trace when education was made compulsory in New Hampshire, but it was after 1852, as in that year Massachusetts was the first state to do it. There is a big gap in Wikipedia's coverage here, History of education in the United States and High school (North America) both strike me as needing a lot of work. Moonraker (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. It's even more muddled here because at various times Mont Vernon children who were past primary school age attended (public? semi-public? unclear) secondary schools in different neighboring towns; they came and went around the turn of the century. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing maintenance tags

Since you've been here since 2003 and are an admin, you shouldn't be removing maintenance tags without a better reason than that given in your edit summary for Ancient astronauts. Although some tags require (or encourage) TP discussion, {{Copy edit}} and {{Refimprove}} definitely do not. Miniapolis 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware of how it works. Vague tags slapped down without explanation can be removed if an editor thinks that's the best way to improve the article, just like any other edit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreen again

David,

Thanks for undoing the latest example. I was about to undo it myself, but for a different reason: the example given is actually a soramimi, not a mondegreen. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Mystery Hill New Hampshire historical marker.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mystery Hill New Hampshire historical marker.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


NOTE: The reason I've flagged the image is that it is classed as a non-free image, yet it is an existing sign. Fair use of a non-free image, generally doesn't apply when a free image could be created (which could certainly be done for such an existing sign, especially since it's located in a public place). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Under - ?Good Faith?

Forgive me for not fully understanding the dynamics of wikipedia. I was under the impression that the pseudoscience section allowed speculative theories.

I understand that it is difficult to comprehend an idea that is utter lunacy to the current norm and 180 degrees out of sync with your reality.

To this end, the post was intentionally sarcastic to allow those that do not wish to ponder alternatives to at least have some enjoyment.

That being said the theory does join known laws of physics into a harmony, albeit contrary to what is acceptable.

This leaves me to believe either you are removing this content in Bad Faith or you have an alternate reason for removing that I would kindly ask you to elaborate on before proceeding.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaded936 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to future self: this is a hollow Earth crank. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Earth

Thank you for taking the time to continually review and correct deficiencies in new authors content. If you don't like the links to music and videos, despite my thinking they are relevant, I'm ok with their removal. I would however like to discuss the removal of what you consider speculation. The problem that I see is that the content is highly relevant to this theory. I understand that you think it is crazy or directly conflicts with your worldview but something that conflicts still deserves to be heard. How else can erroneous dogmas be corrected or crazy ideas flushed out and permanently invalidated. Instead of undoing and redoing continuously can you provide me with a draft including links to all information that you removed or in the alternative provide some guidance as to how the references and links can be grouped and rephrased into a manner you find acceptable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Affectionately, Your Hollow Earth Crank Jaded936 (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many books has Agatha Christie sold?

Hi David. Let me start by saying that Agatha Christie is my favourite author, and I have no difficulty in believing that she has sold 3 billion books. However, the only independent reference I can find is from Guiness in 2018 which seems to state that it has verified 2 billion sales. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/amp/news/2018/10/5-page-turning-book-facts Do you have a better or more recent source? Apologies I've you have already included this and I have missed it. gutterheart (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gutterheart: You put a "citation needed" after the statement that Guinness Records "lists Christie as the best-selling novelist of all time", which is supported later on. The 3 billion figure comes after that ... and you're right, it says "2 billion" further down. I don't know where the "3" came from - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady "tom terrific" Nickname unsourced?

It has sources[3][4] and there's the trademark kerfuffle, but I don't have time right now to shoehorn it into his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the article, which is where it belongs - not a hatnote. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L Sayers

David, if you have any issues with my edits to Dorothy L Sayers I would appreciate it if you would talk with me here or on my talk page or on the article talk page instead of just reverting them as nonsensical. They are written in good faith and I hope to be overhauling the article as Sayers deserves a much better write up. Disdain is not helpful. Constructive help is always welcomed. Thank you. Anna (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits done in response to my revisions explain why this seemingly random guy was in given so much credence in the article. Much better. That's how wikipedia works! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saaho

Please requesting you to participate in the discussion on the talk page, I am suspecting editors are teaming up and trying to prove a point. please see Talk:Saaho, I am suspecting admin Cyphoidbomb is teaming up few editors and tilting scales in pov favor. Ripapart (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi DavidWBrooks/2019 archive,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Streetfog (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to future self- this appears to be from a compromised account, re an edit on Pneumon ... however you spell it

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi DavidWBrooks/2019 archive,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi DavidWBrooks/2019 archive,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tingo María, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rawhide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]