David D.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk
	Template:UWAYOR
You may here

Atulsnishchal

I noticed that you had unblocked Atul on a "trial basis". Please look into his recent canvassing in 7 unrelated talk pages about certain wikipedia articles, and his call-to-action directed towards certain religious adherents. Not to mention his message was extremely POV in religious lines.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that, this user admitted to using an anon IP to continue his disruptive edits while his account was banned, (that IP itself was blocked due to disruptive edits). The IP in question is 99.235.98.169, and the user admits to using this IP here. --Ragib (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I cant help it Ragib if you continually think I have bad faith, In my unblock request i mentioned I used this IP. [1], this is if you genuinely think i have bad faith etc. Atulsnischal (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew about the IP. I unblocked you anyway thinking you might turn over a new leaf. Collaborate, wikipedia is not a war and its not about who can recruit the largest army. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Pin-45rightWC.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pin-45rightWC.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture delist nom

Just to let you know, a photo you nominated for Featured Picture status has been nominated for delist from Featured Pictures. Please see the delist nom for more information. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Introgression

Hi, first of all nice work to all of you doing the genetics section for wikipedia - it's been extremely valuable for me in my revision.

I'm all new to this Wikipedia editing stuff. I don't want to edit an article myself because i'm no expert on the subject and I get the impression that you're associated with the article on introgression so I thought I'd write to you about it.

It seems to be incorrect regarding what introgression is according to what I have read. I was under the impression that introgression is simply the movement of alleles between species or sub species, and that this was usually as a result of hybridisation and subsequent backcrossing (although I think the mechanism by which it occurs is not relevant to what it actually is) - NOT necessarily backcrossing between an individual and its parent i.e. it could occur by a hybrid breeding with individuals from either of the parent species rather than the parents themselves.

As I say i'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I have been led to believe and a few minutes of research seem to confirm this (except if you look in the free online dictionary which seems to think that it is specifically related to backcrossing between offspring and parents).

Anyway I thought that you might be interested. If you know otherwise then please let me know, because it would be useful for my exams!

Cheers

Jugglia11 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)jugglia11

Thanks

Thank you.. for all of your help. Talk to you soon--Michael (Talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem

This might need just a touch of simplification. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. But there were so many edits flying around I didn't want to get caught in edit clashes. Also it took me a while to figure out the references, I didn't have time to double check them either. Some seemed out of place so i might have got them wrong. David D. (Talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still a bit overwhelmed with various forms of 'flu! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this article is improving, in fact, quite the reverse - but I'm not sure what to do about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

100/200

Does this look like the work of a masters student to you? I think it's fair to say he has cast doubt on the veracity of his claims. I really would like to see a citation on this maximum speed info. See talk:200 metres for more... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was judging the quality of his contribution to the 100m and 200 m pages alone. I did not check the rest. I agree the rest are not great, but his edits on the 100 and 200 agree with everything I have ever read on the sprints. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano

I made it exceedingly clear that was not to be done without either my agreement (and then of course anyone else would be free to reblock), or with consensus on ANI. Neither of those things exists. Please restore the block and continue discussion on ANI. Prodego ^talk 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I also ask you to revert your unblock. You admittedly didn't read the full discussion and even worse didn't talk to the blocking admin about it. RxS (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read the full discussion. This war on productive editors is not helping the encyclopedia quality improve. Endless, very long discussions are wasting huge numbers of hours. This all started due to flagrant plagiarism, something that most RfA contributors either didn't take time to see or chose not to see. That scenario was an exceptional circumstance, and it is understandable why tensions were already high. But instead we want to go the route of many more lost writers hours? I don't want to play that game and I don't think the admins should be playing that game. Talk people of the ledge and persuade people to move to different corners. That is always preferable to using blocks. It should be a last resort. Many will say I ignored consensus but I did read the opinions and I weighed the arguments. I have no horse in this race but it is clear that many others do. Personally, I think that history causes many to wish for punitive admin decisions when that is not always the best for the encyclopedia. If this was really the last straw for many with regard to giano then it might be everyone is too close to the back story. David D. (Talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have never before been involved with Giano, and am just as uninvolved as you, if not more. Again I am asking you to reverse your out of process and out of consensus unblock and continue discussion. Prodego ^talk 06:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reversal of the block was seriously beyond the realm of policy or good judgment. I strongly advise you to reconsider. We simply don't unblock without talking to the blocking admin or serious consensus that the block was inappropriate, which does not exist here. - Philippe 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. I'd like to inform you that I have filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Moni3 in which you are referred to by name, though not as an involved party. Best regards,  Sandstein  14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I've added your name to a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to my comment Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Block review/unblocking procedures and protocol. Prodego ^talk 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your edit. As I said, what i have started is half finished. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I am looking forward to reading it. Prodego ^talk 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mole (animal)

Thanks for your help separating the talk pages for the articles named Mole. It helps a lot. Chrisrus (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for your help on the talk page for Mole (Animal). I hope that my argument has been rhetorically successful enough for me to be able to continue work on the article only to have it undone. May I? Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were you I would wait for the two who originally undid the work to reply. Certainly I'd be interested to see their response. Meanwhile, you could always work on a copy in a sandbox. For example, User:Chrisrus/Mole. In general, I think you will find that wikipedia works best if you don't rush things. David D. (Talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you, at any point, feel it appropriate, I'd appreciate your giving me a nod, a go-ahead. Chrisrus (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the "right forum"

I have no other place to address Ed Poor, and an accusation of cowardice like that should be in public, where it belongs, so that the other side cannot ignore the accusation. Please leave any censorship of that accusation to Ed Poor and attend other matters of unencyclopedic content, of which there are regrettably many. 71.193.206.116 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He has already set the precedent. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is done to enforce censorship. By protecting his page, you're only assisting in his irresponsible actions.71.193.206.116 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Flagwaving

See "Joseph Gold" in this review link. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Romanian_hay.jpg

I've suggested this be replaced with File:Romania_Hay_better_version.jpg as the FP at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Romanian hay.jpg Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Itk_GNF1Hthumb.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Itk_GNF1Hthumb.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Hi David. I'm less than please with the replacement of the Introduction to evolution article with the current version. There are components that are excellent and could have been incorporated; however, I generated a list of concerns with my limited skill sets. I'm perplexed how an FA article could be completed replaced with a solo act with little or no citations. I feel it reads like an opinion paper and not a scientific article. I'm not prepared to be drug into the quagmire - been there - done that as Random Replicator; so I will precede with caution here. Nor am I suggesting we revisit the good old days of simultaneous FA and Deletion; however, your thoughts on the article talk page would be most appreciated. Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Photosynthetic reaction centre

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Photosynthetic reaction centre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crick.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox2

I ran across User:David D./sandbox2 in a Google search for text added to Plant Cell. It appears to be a copy of http://www.uri.edu/cels/bio/plant_anatomy/glossary.html. Unless you are Alison Roberts, it would seem to be a copyright violation. Am I missing something?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a sand box, a guide for future topics. It is a copyright even if not in the main namespace? David D. (Talk) 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)