User talk:David Woolley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello David Woolley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Wikiacc (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Interference

See User_talk:193.122.208.211. --Edcolins 11:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:SETI@home

Hi David. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The good news is that I share with you most of the comments you left on my talk page:

  • The whole article is not very rigorous in my view - Correct and maybe I was too lazy or busy for not dealing with that since a long time now. I am a fan of the project myself but I still see the article full of vanity!
  • The sources for network adminstrator - I agree again after checking.
  • One of my concerns about the article is over use of links. Links have been put in when they are too vague, and sometimes refer to the wrong definition. - Yes indeed. I can help in this.
  • I don't know for certain that the Lovell telescope doesn't get some government grants for SETI work. - As I am aware of is that the Novell telescope got a grant in 2001 and think it's been renewed by 2003 (but not sure it all that was related to SETI). Also, as heard in the news recently, that Britain is keen again to invest on Space technology but not sure wheather Lovell telescope has been granted a budget.

I think that the article needs some revision (facts, references, pov, etc...) What I suggest, David, is that it would be better later on to have a balanced article in terms of positivism and sckeptism. (having maybe both sections) -- Cheers -- Svest 19:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing

Hi, David Wooley. I agree with your assessment of Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing and the network dab. IUnlinking the [[network]] might make sense or combining it as [[computing|computing network]]. I do agree that computer network doesn't quite fit here.

Let me know if you'd like to make the change or if you'd like to discuss more.

And, please feel free to share any other feedback you have about [[Network]]. There are hundreds of links to disambiguate.....television network, telecommunication network, social network....ugh.  :-) Happy editing! >: Roby Wayne Talk 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist

When I said cite sources, I meant sources that are not open to interpretation. The Old Testament was written ages after the supposed events happened and are in themselves not an entirely reliable source. What further complicates it, is the fact that there is quotes of which the meaning gets lost or misinterpreted in translation.

I have nothing against faith, but citing the Bible as a reliable source won't go well with me. BTW, I think it's a baseless argument to think creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. God could've created the world and sort of build in the "random" evolution that happened next.

The question of sources was mainly aimed at the claim carbon dating was proven wrong and that evolution was related to communism. - Mgm|(talk) 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems

Hi, thanks for your message about I Capuleti e i Montecchi. Since you seem to be well up on this stuff, perhaps you could fill me in. The page the text comes from advertises "original and exclusive writing" and offers dire threats against anyone pirating it; the WP article contained no indication that it was reproduced with permission. As you know, blatant copyvios can be speedied, as it says at the top of the page you cited, WP:CP. There's no mention there of the need to list it as a copyright problem as well; I naturally assumed it would be treated by an admin as a speedy deletion, which should take much less than a week and doesn't require any listing elsewhere. Does the problem lie in the fact that (it seems) I didn't use the {{db}} tag? Now, in your message to Kleinzach you imply that anyone can just revert the copyvio notice without causing problems. Is that correct? If so, I wonder why you didn't tell me (or even do it yourself if it's that simple); if not, what is the point in my listing the article as a copyright problem for seven days, given that an official permission to reproduce has already been submitted to and acknowledged by the permissions dept, and its status is therefore not controversial? Incidentally, I wonder what the point would be of "waiting to see if he does it properly"? Both Kleinzach and I feel we have spent more than enough time on this business, and I hope you can shed some light on the situation. Thanks. Flapdragon 01:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said in my message above, there is absolutely no further question of a copyvio since official permission to use the text has been lodged, so I've reverted the copyvio notice. Flapdragon 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User:Clee7903

Yes, I noticed the message on Clee's talk page. I've since removed the image from the article it was on, pending confirmation of licencing. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sorting

I'm working too fast (reading Hampshire as New Hampshire) – need to slow down – sorry about that. --Bruce1ee 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General complaints

My compliments for your patient handling of "general complaints". JFW | T@lk 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I second the compliment, I apologise for any grief I may have caused. Serves me right for following the kind sir who commented just before me.

--Jen Duane 8:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] November 15 "Vandalism"

With regard to the note you left on my talk page....

As far as I was aware, I was editing a current version of the page, and added one short and relevant comment. I did have the edit page open for a long time (complicated reasons), but I did not get the usual warning that I was editing an outdated version, or that the page had been changed since I'd started editing. I am unable to account for other differences in the page versions subsequent to my edit.... I might very well have changed something in error, I probably should have checked the difference between versions after saving, and, of course, I apologise.

Now, that said, with all due respect, you might want to consider taking a brief look at users edit histories before you go accusing them of malice and vandalism. Some people get quite upset by that sort of thing. If people are acting out of habitual malice, it's almost always evident from their recent edits.

Best wishes, TheMadBaron 19:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Thank you for adding the source at end of my addition to the Uzbekistan page. I was unsure how to do this and I did not have time to find out. It was my intention to come back and add it and when I did I seen you had done so for me.

Thanks again

Alex

[edit] How to insert an external link on a page while editing?

I wasn't trying to correct anything you had said, I just thought the way you phrased it was slightly confusing (the bit about seriously considering anytime you placed a link in the body text of an article). I was just tyring to clarify your statements, not correct them. :) -Lanoitarus 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kiss-image.jpg

Your points may be valid, although IMO an explicit relase from the copyright holder overrides such attempts at a geenral contrat of adhesion (courts have been mixed on upholdign such contracts in general, but the normal copyright rule is that an explicit statemetn from teh copyright holder trumps such general terms). But the IMO rather dubious nature of this issue takes it out of the realm of speedy deletion. I think that if you want to persue this you should take it to WP:PUI or WP:IFD where there can be actual debate on the issue.

In any case I will not restore the speedy delete tag on the image, and i ask ypu not to do so.

I am sure that you feel in good faith that the site terms of use prevent this being freely used by wikipedia. You may be right. But this is not the kind of clar-cut case that IMO is suited for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mittelalter.JPG

The Mittelalter.JPG image in the Portuguese wiki has already been deleted. Thanks for your alert. --Leonardo Alves 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:General complaints

Hi David! Your point on Wikipedia:General complaints#The Tempest (play) is well made, but I think it's a bit daunting for general readers and (potential) new editors to grasp. It seems to me that it's better to encourage people not sure about how the system works to just have a go and see how it works. Getting into the whole "go into the history, find the last good revision, revert to that, check it over"-thing is fine for those of us who've been here a while or who grasped the Wiki idea instantly, but for most other people it's a big "this is too complex for you to edit" sign! It took me weeks as an active editor to grasp how basic reversion worked. We always need new contributors and vandalism hunters, so I worry about scaring them off with jargon. Peace! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Wikipedia really needs people like David to snap the whip to get everyone galloping in the right direction -- forward! BenjaminLindelof 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nerium oleander and its toxins

Hi David - thanks for formatting the refs I added, I'm not too well up on using these templates. I've just added another (while cleaning up the plant description a bit more), could you check I've got it right, please? - thanks, MPF 14:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (PS I'd agree that this article should be merged into the existing Oleander article)

[edit] Help desk fix

Thanks for picking up the top post and my archiving of it. --GraemeL (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Distributed Computing Category Link

Regarding your comment: In the link was an excess "| " as shown in the diff. It wasn't really actually broken, so maybe I should've said something besides "bad." Just curious, is this a worthy update? Sean 18:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see how it works now. The category format seems somewhat hacked up, and I didn't realize it. Lesson learned. Sorry about that! --Sean 18:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for your excellent work helping other Wikipedians

I award this Helpful Barnstar to David Woolley for his consistently thorough and helpful answers on the Wikipedia:Help Desk and related pages.
I award this Helpful Barnstar to David Woolley for his consistently thorough and helpful answers on the Wikipedia:Help Desk and related pages.

Hi, David! I am looking at your talk page and marvelling that despite your relatively short time here so far, no one has yet thanked you for your efforts to help other Wikipedians with their technical difficulties at the Help Desk and elsewhere. You consistently provide extraordinarly thorough and practical answers and help make the Help Desk a friendly and useful service. Thank you for your contributions, and keep up the good work! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 09:39:05Z

[edit] Gregg

Please note my reply on my own talkpage. Uppland 13:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Puerto Rico

Hello David, I believe that I have never had the pleasure of writing to you before. You're right about my interest in the article, I've written over 300 of them and always check and see the edits. In this case I saw that User:71,208.24.76 posted his POV twice even after your warning in his talk page. There are cases when a temporary 24 hr. protect discourages a person from breaking the three revert rule and therefore an edit war is avoided. I have nothing personal against User:71,208.24.76, otherwise I would have waited for him to revert three times and then blocked him, but I don't want to discourage him. If you'll notice he created an unsourced and POV article Puerto Rico Nasa Experimentation, which he now links by "See also's". Not only should this article be "tag" for cleanup, as you already did, but also for verification of sources. By the way I must say that you've been doing excellent work in Wiki, my hat off to you (smile). Tony the Marine 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sorting Anglo Norse Society

Then replace it with a better stub category! :-) Catamorphism 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] name links

The numbers link to articles on individual engines, the names link to whatever they were named after. — Dunc|☺ 16:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide

Looks OK to me at the moment, I will keep an eye on it. Physchim62 (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ACM Crossroads

Hi, thanks a lot for adding ACM Crossroads, I'm the editor-in-chief, and it's great to see someone cares! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.68.50 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Funny Man!

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for Wikipedia articles.

You said this on the Article Creation page.

What is Wikipedia a valid source for, if not Wikipedia articles?

Bananas? Tofu? Orangutangs?

Very funny!

It's quite correct that it is not a valid source for itself. What this means is that information used in one Wikipedia article cannot be taken from another Wikipedia article, it must be taken from a primary source outside of Wikipedia.
--David Woolley 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User talk:64.235.102.2

I'm trying to help track down the students that are likely to be behind the vandalism. I don't see anything in your recent history or theirs that indicate you've crossed paths before, but I figured I'd ask just in case. See this vandalism in particular. Does this IP address ring a bell? Do you have any connection to high school students in Ontario, Canada? Or was this purely random? --Stephane Charette 05:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was random. --David Woolley 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asia

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

Dear David, at first I put this question by mistake on your user page (newby mistake, sorry!).

Could you please look at rigid rotor and let me know if it satisfies the Wikipedia standards, and, if not, any suggestions for changes? Thank you. --P.wormer 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tay Coast Line (et al)

Hi David - I've got no idea if you are an expert on the railways in Britain or not, so forgive me if I'm a novice preaching to a master. Part of the issue of "Tay Coast Line" vs "Dundee and Perth Railway" is that xxx-line is the track and yyy-railway is the company that built or operates the line. Hence and article titled "Dundee and Perth Railway" has to be about the rail company that existed from 1845 when it was given assent through till 1848 when it was absorbed into the Scotish Central Railway. So the question is - what do you call the stretch of track between Dundee and Perth? I'm happy to use whatever term is deemed appropriate - the only reason I titled it "Tay Coast Line" is because that term is already used in existing Wiki articles.

As for the "Glasgow to Dundee (via Perth) Line", I'm glad you made the comment that it doesn't seem to exist as a single line - because it doesn't! Glasgow to Dundee via Perth is a route, not a single line. But again, it already exists within Wiki and within the existing template, hence my attempt to create an article to complete the template. NajaB 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, I mentioned for historical reasons two original and two review papers (I read all 4 of them) in my rigid rotor article. Just from the references alone people can see how old the topic is. These articles are available on the internet (for free if you have access via most universities), otherwise you have to pay. But the same goes for textbooks. Knowing this, you still think it is too technical for Wikipedia? Cheers, --P.wormer 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)