User talk:DavidWBrooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to leave a new message.


User talk: DavidWBrooks/2003 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2004 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2005 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2006 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2007 archive

Contents

[edit] New Hampshire primary

Curious as to why you reverted my change to New Hampshire primary. - 156.34.80.165 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an error; I mis-read (mis-saw?) what you had done. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very telling statement on your user page

Let me first admit, I've never been a huge fan of how Wikipedia operates, although I find Wikipedia useful. Some might say I'm even hostile. I was wondering if you could expand on the statement you make on your user page: "I came to Wikipedia in January 2003, following a media storm when it hit 100,000 articles, but after all this time I'm still uncertain how useful it is as a knowledge tool." I'm especially curious since you say you are a reporter. --Fandyllic (talk) 11:22 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

[edit] "There Once was a man from Nantucket" additional reference.

On two separate occasions, I have attempted to add in a particular reference to this as follows:

John Valby, aka "Dr. Dirty," immortalized the popular obscene version in his limerick "Ya Ya."

Twice, you or some other person has deleted it. How come? Valby not only immortalized this particular limmerick, but has infused it into the pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.180.250 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references of obscure performers need some kind of reference. Does this guy have an article? the song? Otherwise it's just some sentence dropped in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Valby created his version of the famous "drinking" song "Ya Ya" with the "...Nantucket..." line as well as many others. See the following site for relevant information: http://www.johnvalbynation.com/ as well as the Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Valby. I'm not sure what more of a reference you want - please advise.
Don't put the references here; include them in the statement. That's what keeps things from getting deleted. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the reference in the text, and still it was deleted; I can only assume by you. What is the problem here? Do you have nothing better to do than mess with other people's edits?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.180.250 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a note right under your addition saying "don't add any more - this isn't a list of times it was referenced" or something like that. it's been there for a while - it seems to be the consensus that we don't need to add a comment in the article every time somebody somewhere references it in a song. So I removed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times

Sir, I'm a great fan of your columns in the NY Times. Any idea when your next book will come out? I thought the book about "bobos" was interesting. EdRooney (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul is Dead

I'm curious - why did you undo my change to the "Paul is Dead" page? As it was (and now is again), it reads "Evidence for McCartney's death consists of "clues" found among the Beatles' many recordings" - which isn't accurate. The Abbey Road cover photo is probably the strongest single source of clues, and the best known. It isn't a recording - so I changed it to say recordings, lyrics and record covers. Why would you revert that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as unnecessarily wordy - a good example of unnecessary specificity slowing down reading. "Recordings" includes the covers and accompanying hoohah, and besides, there are examples almost immediately talking about the cover art. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "recording" does not encompass the record sleeve, just the audio track - no-one uses "recording" to refer to photographs! The Abbey Road cover shot fired up the whole phenomenon and surely you don't really think the cover could honestly be described as a recording? ("records" would be better than "recordings", but it's still vague.) As for wordiness, I added just four, which corrected a lazy but significant error in the original text. It might be a fraction quicker to read without "lyrics and record covers", but it's very misleading without them and I would have thought accuracy is the opposite of "unnecessary", as you say it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
But why stop with lyrics and covers? What about statements made in interviews and elsewhere; those are cited as clues. And movie clips! And the cartoons!! If we're going to be specific, we should drag them into the sentence, too! (This is why legal documents are so hard to read: the need to be comprehensive and specific leads to a jumble.)
Adding an unnecessary phrase is poor writing, no matter how short the phrase is. It's a judgement call, of course, but I think "recording" in this sentence does, indeed, encompass everything around the actual audio sessions, including the way they were sold and packaged (in films too) and including people's responses to them, so I would say those four words are unnecessary.
By the way, sign your posts, will you? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blind?

How did I miss the fact that you have been an admin since before I became a registered user?!? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

During all of our work last year to keep the various seven wonders articles clear of cruft and vandalism, I kept thinking you would make a great admin. Little did I know ...  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I even watchlist'ed your future RfA page so I could lend my support, but it appears that you predate the RfA system. Old fart indeed ... --Kralizec! (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That is very interesting since my recent experience is almost the exact opposite. As I am slated for "downsizing" after my employer was acquired by a competitor, I am currently job hunting and have had three interviews in the past month. While the interviews were surprisingly easy, I did not get the job ... contrasted with my easy-as-pie unopposed RfA. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temple of Artemis

how was the Temple of Artemis built by persians and lydians? also,how was the Mausoleum of Maussollos built by persians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergr33k (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie on the MTA music reference

Why did you remove my contribution dealing with another song about Charlie on the MTA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon224 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “curly quotes”

[A modification of yours to the Newspaper article] changed two distinct regions of text; the first of which merely changed “curly quotation marks” to "undirected ASCII quotation marks". Was this change deliberate — or, perhaps more to the point, do you think that it is better for Wikipedia articles to use the latter ? If so, why? I often change Wikipedia text from ASCII punctuation to the more specific punctuation mark available outside of ASCII, so you may like to educate me if you do think ASCII punctuation better. Arguments I'm aware of:

  • ASCII is easier to type when writing/editing articles; though this isn't an argument against me changing the text so long as I can justify my own time.
  • ASCII is easier to search for.
  • There could be issues of fonts not including the relevant glyph, though I'm not aware of any cases (for a font that someone uses to display Wikipedia text). It displays fine in the X11 font commonly used in xterms, for example. The character does exist in both the default roman Windows and MacOS charsets, so I'd guess that most fonts would include it.
  • For aural web browsers, it's possible that some old software only recognizes ASCII characters, but into the future I suppose that they're better off with more specific characters (e.g. distinct from double-prime or inch sign).

The reason I use “these” rather than "these" is that “these” certainly look better when printed out (and generally on high-resolution devices), and I tend to think they look better on screen as well — though no doubt that will depend on font and font-substitution to some extent. In the case of some punctuation or contexts, the meaning can be clearer too; though that isn't usually the case for double-quote marks. Pjrm (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David has replied on my talk page. David, feel free to remove this section, I leave it here only because I'm guessing that you want your archive pages to include all historical content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speak Low

I added so many stubs as to attract editors, yet I agree, it is a bit scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth E Kegg (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Monadnock

David, the only reason the article says "New Hampshire" is because you changed "New England" to "New Hampshire" in your edit! I'll let it stand for the moment, and give us a chance to work this out on the talk pages. Please indicate why you have decided to change New England to New Hampshire & we'll go from there. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S., Note as well that "New Hampshire" is already used in the beginning of the sentence as a geographic reference at the state level; "New England" showed the mountain's importance in the broader region in the second part of the sentence. Is there some pressing reason you object to this? As it currently reads, you mention "New Hampshire" as the location of the mountain twice in the same sentence. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:tags

Well, removing tags is good, but only if the the reason, why it was tagged, is solved. So it will be good to remove tags after making the necesssary changes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Wealth" of NH Legislators

It's generally assumed that NH state legislators are wealthy, retired and have more time to spend in hours of committee meetings and sessions of the House/Senate than younger, working folks do, but I haven't seen any studies or news reports on it, so it was wise of you to spike that. It is certainly the common wisdom, though. - Nhprman —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: apostrophes for plurals

My own view follows MLA style (my copy of the MLA guide is not handy at the moment, but I can get you a reference later if you'd like) in that an apostrophe is an indication of either a contraction or a possessive and should not be used for a plural or a decade. It may be a result of doing so many word puzzles (crosswords are my current vice), or it may be the school system where I was educated, but I personally dislike seeing an apostrophe used for a plural, especially after an acronym; it's one little bit of copyediting that normally do when I see it. Slambo (Speak) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good point

Good point here: [1]. WP:WHEN is a useful essay for using inline citations that meet featured article criteria. Regards. dissolvetalk 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for only including links to my photo site. I was not aware of the guidelines but have now read them and will not add any more links. (I do want to point out that when I first included the links I did get a message from a moderator that they were OK but I can understand that this has now changed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgostby (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonders of the World

Did I over-revert the Wonders of the World article? While new editor Wordsmithsonian (talk · contribs) was rather exuberant in updating the article, I found the final version quite unpalatable [2]. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to offer a few words, as the next version was -IMO- even worse. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
These forks are going to make my head explode ... --Kralizec! (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you think we should do about the newly created Wonders of the Middle Ages and Seven Natural Wonders of the World articles? Except for the extra photos, they appear to exclusively be content split from the main article. I hate to keep harping on this editor (a la BITE), but this is starting to get ridiculous. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just ignore them. They don't do any harm. As long as he doesn't trash up the Wonders of the World article any more. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NELSAP Wording

That works too! Prepositions are such tricky things late at night :) Thank you! Jrclark (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul is dead

Hey there,

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the carnation from Magical Mystery Tour is better described as a 'clue'. But in the case of the lyric from Glass Onion, John Lennon has confirmed that the lyric was a direct reference to the 'Paul Is Dead' hoax: See the 'Glass Onion' wikipedia entry for confirmation of this. So, I think it qualifies as a 'reference by the Beatles'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.86.32 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art Tatum Talk page

Sorry about that - I should have tested what it looked like first. It was the first time I had interweaved and I was nonplussed with the results. Nevertheless, the user who his now responding to my responses - I think he wrote some of that article - seems more intent on winning childish arguments rather than improving the article. Since I don't want to get sucked in, I will no longer contribute to that page anyway. But I will remember the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batonpower (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Williams Gunnison

I will leave the fate of John Williams Gunnison in your hands, then. Go in peace! Jobjörn (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Monadnock

Hi David, I hope you are well. Could I trouble you for feedback on the suggestion I left at the bottom of Talk:Mount Monadnock? thanks--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernors

If you read the first paragraph of the history section of the Vernors article, you will see that there is already a passage regarding why Vernors lost its apostrophe in the late 1950s with a supporting citation. As your revision was thus rendered redundant, I reverted it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] richness

Obviously Mr. Nash cared. Very much. You have succeeded in making Mr. Nash's work even more "pithy" yet very much less interesting. You manage to emasculate the richness and complexity of the man.

Nash's genius lies in his expression of his love of life in exquisitely simple terms and pursuits. Somehow, even his biographical details have been destroyed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.194.165 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(note to future self - apparently this is reference to an edit to Ogden Nash removing an incomprehensible paragraph about the Baltimore Colts. I think)

[edit] Sanders

Yes, you're right. All good points. Mark83 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neville archaeological site

Heya, I was just going to say that while I did get the information in that article from other sources, I cited them all at the end in the references section. The article I posted is a paper I wrote for my north american prehistory class, you could look through the articles i cited and find everything I used. I just joined, so I'm not sure how to send messages, but if there's anything in particular that you think was copy/pasted without being cited let me know and I'm sure I can show you that it wasn't or that I've cited it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torval (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nashua Airport

Hi David --- Until this morning, I had no idea what ATIS was. But after seeing the back and forth between you and some new users on the Nashua Municipal Airport page, I decided to Google "ATIS Nashua", and found this, which puts the frequency at 125.1. While the page I found is some company's re-formatting of the original FAA data (which I don't have), do you think that it is correct? See you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Nice recovery on the edit summary! --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-columbian Turkeys

Hey there, I saw a few of your edits and thought I'd drop you a line to ask you what you think about my problem concerning OR. If you have some time on your hands, why not drop in on the following notice and give us your opinion: Turkey mountain. Trigaranus (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob, seems to have sorted itself out! Cheers, Trigaranus (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peruvian Amazon

Hi David, I'm Edwin Villacorta, autor of article Peruvian Amazon and Amazonía Peruana in Spanish Wikipedia. I wanna a little favor, I wanna you correct the article in english, I know it have many wrong words. I will getting improve the article.

Thank you very much.

[edit] Leslie Durrell

I'm curious as to why you deleted the page on Leslie Durrell, which you claim is "unsourced gossip about the brother of famous people".

In fact, the material is indeed sourced - from official biographies of Gerald Durrell and Lawrence Durrell. Perhaps this wasn't made clear enough - but still, surely it would have been more appropriate to simply request that the source or sources for the material were cited on the page, rather than deleting the text in its entirety. It seems to me that this is an extremely unilateral, heavy-handed approach and also one that is not in keeping with the general way things are done on Wikipedia.

I would prefer to reinstate the material and include citations of the appropriate sources, rather than to leave the page as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adochka (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The unsourcing isn't the major problem - it's the non-notable, gossipy nature of the article. It did not give any reason why Leslie is worthy of an article. He never did anything of public note except have famous brothers, which is not reason to be in an encyclopedia - and worse, the material in the article was nothing but personal tidbits, nothing of any interest or notabiliy to anybody else. I said in the Talk page that I thought the article was invalid and nobody reponsded to defend it, so two months later I removed the gossip. I wwould have reduced it to a mere Redirect page, except it's not clear which brother it should redirect to.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. In your original comment when you deleted the page you did state that the material was unsourced, hence my objection - because the material is taken from two sources - biographies of Gerald and Lawrence. The issue you now raise is different and concerns whether Leslie deserves his own page. The question of whether Leslie's life is interesting to anyone else is a valid one, and I originally added the page because I found that on other Durrell sites or groups offered either incorrect information or a total lack of information and many people were asking for it. It seems to me that your objection is not that the page wouldn't be of interest per se, but that Leslie was not "famous" in his own right and therefore ought not to be interesting. Both Gerald and Lawrence's biographers included the information presumably not for the dubious pleasures of gossip but because it had an affect on the lives of their more famous subjects. Perhaps the context, though, made this more readily apparent.Adochka (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skelton's longest word

Did you delete the Skelton joke because you consider it "feeble," or because it has "no real connection to the article"? I don't know that feebleness is grounds for removal, especially when such an assessment is the opinion of a single editor. The joke is one of the best known from Skelton, a legendary American comic, and it was sourced and cited. . . . Also, I am unclear as to how a joke that starts with "The longest word in the English language. . ." has "no real connection" to the "Humour" section of an article entitled "Longest word in English." Emoll (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)