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

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2008 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2009 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2010 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2011 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2012 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2013 archive

User talk: DavidWBrooks/2014 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2015 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2016 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2017 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2018 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2019 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2020 archive

User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2021 archive

User talk:DavidWBrooks/2022 archive

User talk:DavidWBrooks/2023 archive

User talk:DavidWBrooks/2024 archive

for fixing the "Vermont - 'Area'-section" i accidentally stumbled on; and so swiftly!Sintermerte (talk)13:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From theWikipedia Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw you reversed my edit under the "Eeny Meeny Miny Moe" page due to my Wheel of Fortune example not being sourced correctly. I do have a source regarding it on the Wheel of Fortune archive list, if I source that would it be good enough to keep?I am new to editing Wikipedia so I might've not gotten the hang on all the rules yet....

Thanks in advance!Takora06 (talk)21:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try it and see what it's like. We don't know until you do it! -DavidWBrooks (talk)11:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit Summary is "I don't know why this is better but it just is". Well, it's better because "consisted of exclusively Democrats" has an adverb modifying a noun, and you moved the adverb to its usual position to modify the verb.

But I came in after you and scrubbed the whole thing, deleting the introductory sentence beginning, "There is a unique contrast". The sentence draws a conclusion (and hypes it) rather than just stating facts, which the following sentence did and does. It is probably not "unique" and, absent an explanation (such as out-of-state influence in federal races but not state ones), not newsworthy. That's not a criticism of your edit.

Now, the article notes this divergence in one other place. Also, I think the summary of individual election cycles does not make any point and is probably too detailed to be in the general article on the state.Spike-from-NH (talk)22:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit - no need to make uniqueness claims. -DavidWBrooks (talk)DavidWBrooks (talk)19:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your revert on the talk page. The article on New Hampshire is not the place for every lawsuit that happens in New Hampshire, nor is the talk page. The verdict in question (asserting a specific, much higher dollar figure for "educational adequacy", which the NH Supreme Court just upheld but declined to enforce on the legislature, which recently enacted a statement of its claim to supremacy over the budget) is part of theClaremont litigation and some mention of it might go there.Spike-from-NH (talk)01:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I often add sources to talk pages that I think might be useful for the article. It has never occurred to me that someone might see them as about the subject. Spike, you say that the talk page should not be used for every lawsuit - who determines which lawsuits it can be used for? I don't think anyone has the right to make such a decision, although of course they can use the talk page to argue that the lawsuit isn't significant. This recent ruling was covered in multiple sources. This seems to be a long running debate in New Hampshire, yet the debate isn't even mentioned. Not even a link in the article. That seems very odd.Doug Wellertalk08:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not the authority on what can be put on talk pages. But now you have added a paragraph to the article, a description of a single court case in tedious detail without mention of the two-decade-long litigation that it is a part of. This is inappropriate unless you see the verdict as a victory and are using Wikipedia to tout it.Spike-from-NH (talk)09:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the article talk page. AGF is still required, you aren't showing that here.Doug Wellertalk11:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is of general interest and I've copied it toTalk:New Hampshire.Spike-from-NH (talk)10:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David. I understand why the previous iteration was somewhat cryptic. I have made this version more straightforward. This is not simply a collection of words, but it describes how a fast-moving ("quick") swarm of "nymph bugs" (insects) vex (cause trouble) at the waltz taking place down by the river (fjord waltz). "Quick nymph bugs vex fjord waltz." (27 letters)MrGeoffF (talk)19:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleInfinite Energy (magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Energy (magazine) (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Guy(help! -typo?)09:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I noticed that you have made many edits to the articleSeven Wonders of the Ancient World, and are the only other major editor to that article who is still active on Wiki.

I have made some major changes to the article recently. Given it is such a high traffic article, it would be good to have someone else review the changes. Would you be happy to do so?

Onceinawhile (talk)06:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DavidWBrooks. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators willautomatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted theAccess to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy viaSpecial:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• SeeWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via theUser Info card, available inPreferences →Appearance →Advanced options →Enable theuser info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly,Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation atWikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written byMz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]