Talk:David Hatcher Childress

message: I seem to have attracted a fan. :-)  Probably jealous because my website is mentioned favorably in Archaeology magazine, he's repeatedly edited the main article to make libellous attacks on me.  I'm a bit worried about the 3R rule so I'll leave it for the moment to see if an admin or someone sorts it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have a stalker. :-)  Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, NPOV means that this isn't meant to be a fanboy site for Childress or a site to make personal attacks on anyone. If anonymous coward doesn't like that, tough.  However, I've taken this opportunity to correct something about Childress and make it clear that he relies on channelled information from other writers, he doesn't channel himself so far as I know.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above and as I edited the article, Childress openly uses information channelled by other writers. He doesn't try to hide the fact. But no, there is no reason to take his ideas (hardly theories) seriously.Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, interesting. Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Doug - David got most of his stuff from Augustus LePlongeon, but he does not know it. If you write to me I'll be happy to send you the  entire story. PS - It looks like the WO debate has come to a screeching halt. - E.P. Grondine  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.168 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous coward attack on me 

message: I'd like to propose a merger of the article Adventures Unlimited Press into this one. A search using Google and LexisNexis Academic produced almost nothing reliable regarding the publishing entity Adventures Unlimited, however running Childress himself generates fair bit of material that is still not covered in his present article; in particular regarding his activities in Australia and New Zealand in the 90's. Because of this imbalance in the availability of solid references regarding the two subjects, I propose we merge the 'lesser known' one into the Childress article itself and focus on improving it. If this proposal is successful, I will afterwards add the new material and references to the Childress article, after consensus is reached regarding what material is appropriately merged from "Adventures Unlimited Press".  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good idea. dougweller (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: Is it standard practice for wikipedia editors to list civil and or legal issues for every bio that is published on wikipedia?  If it is not applied to all "bios" as a standard practice when such information is available and verifiable from a credible source, it would seem to me that notating it "here and there" on a select few - especially those already considered "controversial" based on some of the discussions on this page - constitutes an attempt to create a negative bias for the subject of the biography - such as the ones listed on Childress' page in a rather creatively manipulative way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.181.89 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Standard Practices for Author Bios 

message: I removed " He has been involved in two lawsuits regarding publishing. One failed after expiry of a statute of limitations and the other, involving publication of a master's thesis without permission, was settled out of court." Who the hell put that in there? Since this is stupendously trivial I removed it. Beethoven was involved in numerous lawsuits and there isn't a mention of it on his page. And do you know why? Because it would be a really stupid thing to mention. Gingermint (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it before I read this since you didn't explain in an edit summary. But I'd challenge your removal. The guy's a publisher and this was about publishing. Beethoven's best known lawsuit was about custody of his nephew (which despite your claim has substantial coverage in the article, 3 paragraphs, and I doubt if anyone would object to adding the metronome suit.  But do take it to WP:BLPN if you think it shouldn't be in the article.  Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed something weird 

message: ...is a must here. I see absolutely nothing about Chidlress' education. I have always wondered about that because I have nothing contra amateurs, but I sure hate an amateur who poses as a full-fledged academic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.147.88 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: Okay we are missing a photo of him. We may need to take a photo of him from Ancient Aliens and put it there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Hatcher Childress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109150647/http://www.davidhatcherchildress.com/?q=biography to http://www.davidhatcherchildress.com/?q=biography
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717180547/http://wexclub.com/pages/contact.html to http://wexclub.com/pages/contact.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Colavito on Acient Atom Bombs covers a lot of material promoted by Childress.  Maybe not usable for information on the person per WP:BLPRS and WP:SPS but perhaps usable about popular claims... http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id9.html  —PaleoNeonate – 03:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe usable 

message: Wikipedia is often a place for anyone with an axe to grind. Here, people who claim to be skeptics (who may be considered cynics) have presented Childress as promoting "pseudo science" It is an example of Wikipedia's authors and editors passing along their personal opinions as facts. This it seems, is a vulgar practice and seems, like a highly dishonest one. 2601:1C0:7182:B8E0:81FF:61C0:F2D6:C490 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to go by what reliable sources say. If you can find reliable sources that do not assess Childress' work to be pseudos science, you are welcome to include them in the article. See WP:NPOV. Hypnôs (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare this article with others that simply don't assassinate their character. And, it's silly and unscientific to try and prove a negative. Whoever wrote this article seems to have some weird personal agenda. 2601:1C0:7182:B8E0:81FF:61C0:F2D6:C490 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV