User talk:Dave Runger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.
Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia.
You can sign your name on talk pages by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.
If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.
Happy editing, Banana.girl 10:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave get to work and stop vainly checking your talk page Dunne409
Adding a link to a Myspace (that isn't even official) doesn't really count as being a page you've worked on man. --CoastTOcoast533 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard Dave Runger smells like poo...and this isn't vandalism because its true.
You think I would use the word "poo" in an insult? Thanks Dunne409 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Be...I mean...Dunne409 would have used the word manure...b/c he is very sophisticated. In fact he is probably the smartest person in Dunne 409...but obviously not on Dunne 4th floor.
[edit] Color solid
Glad to help out. --DMG413 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles which I must remember to work on (OR which YOU can work on)
Bon Apetite Management Company
William-Adophe Bougeureau
Cannery Row (novel)
Rube Goldberg machine
Amanda Phillips
Dave Runger 11:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SCU userbox
How could I resist? Even though (I'm betting) I graduated before you were even--gasp--born-- Elf | Talk 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created a username and used your userbox...I hope you're happy. Dasumpta 08:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dear Dave
Great edits to the Mars Bar party page... Whether it be Megan Cassas or an article about vagina/anus candy, you just cant let me have anything of my own can you. Have a good time in Hawaii, but try not to talk to anyone. The precious seconds you waste in conversation might be keeping you out of Dartmouth! Dunne409 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sudan Liberation Movement
Though your edits to this article have been valuable, in the future please use the "show preview" feature when editing pages. I don't kow if you're familiar with how the preview button is used, but it allows one to make multiple edits, "previewing" the page in between each alteration, so as to avoid the confusion and excess server burden caused by several edits in close succession by the same person. Thanks. 129.210.141.143 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Darrow article
Dave: you have noted that you believe this to be the proper form for the Darrow article==>"Despite scant education, which included a year at the University of Michigan Law School, Darrow had a keen intellect often shielded by his rumpled, unassuming appearance", and you believe my edit to have been unclear.
Here is my take, despite the relative clause construction, your form may be construed to opine that Darrow's eduction inclusive of Michigan law was scant. Does that mean: 1) his law school education was scant?; 2) his education was scant despite attending law school?; 3) law school added so little to his education that the overall result was scant? 4) his education against the standards for other attorneys at the time was scant (I believe that many simply clerked somewhere rather than attending an institution for the 3 years standard in our time)? 5) his tenor in law school was scant? 6) he just didn't get a good education because of Michigan?; 7) he didn't get a good education in spite of Michigan?; 8) had he only gone Ivy for that year, it would have made all the difference?
While I personally don't believe that the language is NPOV, if you have an axe to grind, by all means revert my edit. I didn't attend UM law, so I'll leave it to your judgment...but I believe that the language is more, not less, slanted than my version. 66.65.76.15 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not mean to be NPOV on the Darrow article or even realize the potential for NPOV interpretation there. Your point is well-taken. Still, I feel that the language you used is a little unclear; basically, I think that the implied use of the word education in the phrase "one year's (education)" is a little ambiguous and definitely doesn't make for very smooth reading. I have several alternate suggestions. Do any of these work for you?
- "Despite scant education, and one year's education at the University of Michigan Law School, Darrow had a keen intellect often shielded by his rumpled, unassuming appearance.
- "Despite scant education AND a year of study at the University of Michigan Law School, Darrow had a keen intellect often shielded by his rumpled, unassuming appearance.
- "Though Darrow's formal education was limited, he did study for one year at the University of Michigan Law School and had a keen intellect often shielded by his rumpled, unassuming appearance.
- Personally, I prefer the third option. Dave Runger 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave: thanks for a considered and considerate reply. Any of the variants seem fine to me. Third option seems fine to me. My reference to NPOV was unclear: it would seem that I was considering set/subset in that, if scant modified education, and education modified Michigan, then scant would modify Michigan by compositional transitivity. I did not mean to suggest that you violated NPOV, just that the composition didn't "scan" to my eyes. Again, all of your variants scan more effectively than the current version, and thanks for your reply. 66.65.76.15 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have put the third option into the Darrow article.Dave Runger 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me...thanks for the change... 66.65.76.15 04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infoboxes
I'm sorry Dave, but I'm just as perplexed by it as you are. I published the box just hoping it would sell itself I guess, so I just put it up and waited to see what would happen. BTW, Love your choice in authors, Stienbeck and Rand are my personal top 2.
Sorry I could help that much! Alex 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Camp Wolfeboro
Do you really think that the Camp Wolfeboro article is better off as a note inserted into the Scouting in California article, rather than standing by itself? (I suppose the same question applies to a lot of the other substantial entries on various camps run by the different CA councils.) The Scouting in California article is already quite lengthy, and could probably benefit from a bit of trimming-up. Anyhow, I am curious why you have made this move. Thanks, Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, for several reasons
- There are only three or four camp articles large enough (whole pages, I mean) to be considered substantial articles, the rest are stubs. While it is good information, it is not yet enough to make a standalone article. If you will let it incubate within the Scouting in California article, and build upon it while it is there, it has the potential to be its own article of substance, but it is not there yet.
- The Scouting Wikiproject is trying to avoid where possible hundreds of small articles that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There would be 300+ current council articles, the same number for OA lodges, and at least 1700 camp articles, and that's just Boy Scouting, do 2/3 again for Girl Scouts. In early February, 50+ small articles were deleted, at which point we decided that state-based articles inclusive of councils, lodges and other history would be the way to go. We're trying to build a comprehensive and not a fractured resource for Scouting.
I am also placing this discussion on the project's talk page, to get input from the other members. Chris 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dave, that's big of you, we really are trying to make it a great project, and it is a big man who can fit his vision into that. Brother, your contributions are appreciated and most welcome. Chris 23:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Determinism and randomness for a lay man
Thanks a lot for your positive feedback on the article.You'd probably be the few people who understand the full extent of the theory and its firm scientific background.Unless u're an atheist it really puts u down to the level of a robot.I renamed it as Determinism and Randomness so i think thats better(less chances of having the article deleted ).Thanks again for the suggestion.Any suggestions on how to make the page more accessible?.Btw the article on neoplatonism was quite cool.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raghavb (talk • contribs)
Thanks dude. You're like my guide at wikipedia. So lets try out the signing Raghavb 09:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC). Yipee it works!
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obama
I have to say, I didn't expect a multi-paragraph comment on my talk page simply because I marked this as a minor edit instead of leaving the checkmark blank. Most importantly, please note that Help:Minor edit states explicitly that "it is often a matter of personal judgment" whether to mark an edit as minor. I marked the edit as minor for multiple reasons, mainly becuase I removed only one word that was not describing Obama, but his father, and also because the article provided no context or reference for the descriptive word used (in fact, until today, the article had been inaccurately describing his father as a Muslim at Obama's birth). My assessment was that I was not "changing the meaning of the article" and was thus making a minor edit because I was altering one word that was not describing Obama and was unsourced. I welcome other users to review and discuss my edit if need be. However, marking the edit as minor does not preclude such discussion, though, given that the article has provided inaccurate information about his father for months, I highly doubt that the discussion will occur (though I would welcome such a discussion, of course). I agree that we should all, myself included, be more careful as to which edits we mark as "minor". In this case, however, there were legitimate reasons for me to mark it as such. I would suggest considering whether other editors could have legitimate explanations for their actions before posting scolding comments on their talk pages. I don't mean to start a flame war here, and I'm sure you didn't either with your comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your well-thought and thorough response. It certainly sounds like you are a reasonable editor. I just wanted to do my best to make sure everything is on the up-and-up. I also have a tendency to be a little excessive with my talk page criticisms (and some other Wikipedia matters); I suppose that I want to present my case as clearly and thoroughly as possible. While I still disagree with you about your marking the edit as minor, I realize it's not too serious of an issue. It might be a matter of subjective interpretation, but there are some guidelines. I think your edit falls outside of what most would consider minor (typos, formatting, moving text around, etc.). Your edit might seem minor to you because you believe that it was the right thing to do for the article -- but some editors might disagree. Here is a neat quote: "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral." (Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers) I guess this message is getting a little bit excessive, too. I am happy to agree to disagree over this small matter. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The sound of the second shoe dropping
Originally the sub-sub-sections under Philosophical issues in Existence of God contained a breezy title with a more technical title in parenthesis; to wit : (1) What is God? (Definition of God's existence) and (2) How do we know? (Epistemology). WAS 4.250 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you don't like my edit? Or are you just giving me an interesting piece of information? I simply felt that the question in the title was somewhat un-encyclopedic. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am "just giving [you] an interesting piece of information", perhaps useful in evaluating options for titles of subheadings, perhaps not. I am very sorry that I was cryptic. It is one of my many failings. WAS 4.250 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] State of World Liberty Index
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article State of World Liberty Index, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Selket Talk 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles for deletion: State of World Liberty Index
Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, State of World Liberty Index, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of World Liberty Index. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey
In the WP:NC guideline when it says simplicity over precision I think it refers to using sensible articles names that don't make a reader go "what the hell is this?" As in Anthony Charles Lynton Blair instead of Tony Blair. That's why in this case I chose the longer, real title instead of what it previously was, I believe, just "Lines." Although I moved it to the longer title and think that's a better idea, you can move it back to Lines if you like. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 09:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cannery Row
Dave:
Thanks for your acts of cleaning up and your obvious care for wikipedia. I think you may have been a bit confused just now though: the last edits I made to the "Cannery Row" article were cleaning up juvenile exclamations in two of the paragraphs of the article. They didn't belong there, and you can reference the history of the article to see what I'm talking about. I didn't post them, and I don't know who did. Why would you report this cleanup of mine as vandalism?! Please be double-sure who you're reporting as a vandal, as I was obviously on your side in this case--Cannery Row is a beloved book, and I'm sure you'd agree those non sequiturs didn't belong there. Thanks!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.186.134 (talk • contribs) May 18, 2007.
- Looking at the page history, it looks like what's happened is as follows: Someone else (69.177.99.113) vandalised the page after you were done with it. Dave Runger reverted that edit, back to yours, but it looks like he put the vandalism warning on your page rather than 69.177.99.113's by mistake. It's a mistake that can happen, because the revert comment includes both the name of the vandal, and of the author of the last valid edit. -- Why Not A Duck 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that is what happened. Thanks very much for helping to clear up this confusion, Why Not A Duck, and I am sorry for my carelessness 68.50.186.134. Dave Runger 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
