User talk:DanielM

Concerning the speedy deletion of Freezer Queen

Terribly sorry. I think I'm being a little idiotic. From my talk page. Merlion 444 05:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Burr; or, A Little More Care, Please!

In reverting my mutilation of your pet paragraph in the Richard Burr article, I think you edited more than you'd intended.

I'd moved the subsection "Financial system" to a more appropriate location, and given it a more appropriate title. I'd be happy to justify that on the talk page, if you think it was incorrect. However, I suspect that you didn't notice that change at all, since in the process you reverted my repair of a dead link.

You should have noticed it. My edit summary was: "Moved section to more appropriate place; fixed broken link in reference".

Please be a little more careful with your future edits. Thanks.

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got my justification for the latest edit written. I'm sorry about the delay: I'm a very picky proofreader, and it usually takes a dozen revisions before I'm satisfied with something I've written. (Of course, I invariably spot a missing period or a "the the" ten seconds after I've hit the "Save Page" button.)

OK, WP policy. Would you say that you've made a serious effort to "write for the 'opponent'"? I suspect that I could guess your position on environmental matters generally, and on Environment America specifically, with a fair degree of accuracy. If you can tell my positions from my WP writings, then I've failed to that extent.

I think you've also fallen short in Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone. I think that you're trying to skew the article by your selection of EA's zero rating, and your inclusion of the description of the measure against which Burr voted.

Finally: where's your justification? I've argued against your edits on the grounds that EA isn't a good source, and I've tried to justify my edits. Your response throughout has been "Show me a rule that says I can't." If it's so important that the EA rating and the particular measure be included, why haven't you tried to provide positive justification for them?

Oh, and: I apologize if I was a bit short about your inadvertently killing my revised citation. Chasing down citations and replacing dead links is one of those vital but tedious tasks; I feel myself in duty bound to do a certain amount of it, but it's a lot of work, and there's so much of it to be done... Thus I got a bit snappish when I found my work reverted. And if I'd intended to be rude, I would've posted the note on the Burr talk page; I put it on your personal talk page to avoid embarrassing you.

--Ammodramus (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're having some kind of technical problem with your edits, though I can't say what it might be. In both of your latest additions to Talk:Richard Burr, you've inadvertently deleted a large chunk of earlier material from the page. Here's the diff for the latest one; here's the diff for the first. As you can see, in both cases you cut a substantial piece out of my January 10 comment. The accidental deletions weren't identical, but were very similar. The first time it happened, I thought it might have been something like hitting CTL-X instead of CTL-V; but the fact that it's occurred twice in a row suggests that it might be a more systematic error.

--Ammodramus (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; hope that the problem hasn't forced you to go back and fix too many edits. It's a weird sort of problem—I wondered, at first, whether it might be deleting the visible contents of an edit window or something like that; however, in both cases the deletion starts in mid-word. Hope that you're able to get it straightened out without too much frustration. If it turns out to be a WP problem rather than something specific to your system, could you let me know what you figure out for it, just so I can make sure not to do it myself? Thanks.

--Ammodramus (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jones (climatologist)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Phil Jones (climatologist), is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on Al Gore Talk Page

Hi Daniel, Just wondering if you'd like to vote on the Al Gore issue. I have set up a little voting section here, and I am sending this note to everyone who participated on the talk page. --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRPG

I don't disagree that there are differences between "JRPGs" and "CRPGs", the problem is that editors have decided on more than one occasion not to highlight those differences (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game and the massive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 86#Videogame Magazines Should Not Automatically Be Regarded as a Reliable Source). The main problems are that A) there are not enough reliable sources, and B) the distinction is largely that of perception. The simple fact is that Japan released tons of games on consoles that are exactly like what we think of as Western computer role-playing games, off the top of my head the Wizardry series, the Black Onyx series, the Madou Monogatari series, and the Hydlide series. The problem is not that Japan didn't make these games, or that they weren't made for consoles. The problem is that companies didn't think it was worth the money to bring these games to America, so this is the perception we have. It is easy and profitable to port an action game where all you have to do is change the protagonist from "Toshiro" to "Jake Killbane", but translating the tons of text used in an RPG is daunting, especially when games like Ultima are already filling that niche. So we got Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest (which are more like stat-building adventure games) because we didn't already have games like that, they were easier to port, and (ultimately) made more money.

Couple this with the fact that someone decided to call the article "console role-playing" instead of "Japanese role-playing", as if that was somehow more technical. Many editors decided to use the abbreviation "cRPG" for computer games and "CRPG" for console games, although sometimes it seemed like a good idea to do it the other way. And since we only had articles for "computer role-playing game", and British editors use "computer game" as Americans would "video game" (i.e. for console, mobile, arcade games, and games on computers), many of the references to CRPGs and "computer role-playing games" were completely arbitrary.

Anyway, that's what was going through my head. Ultimately, it is an opinion, which is no more or less valid than yours. I was simply trying to bring a little broad consistency to the topic, in a way that I felt reflected the general consensus of WP:VG, established through numerous discussions. I did make a few errors, but when several thousand edits are made, a few is pretty good. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sputnik (web browser)

The article Sputnik (web browser) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

For its short timeframe it failed to get notice outside Amiga community, which indicates the lack of notability. As it doesn't get updated for the 5 years now, there is no hope it will eventually get notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sputnik (web browser) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sputnik (web browser) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnik (web browser) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sputnik web browser screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sputnik web browser screenshot.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Erik Balkey

The article Erik Balkey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find any evidence that subject meets WP:MUSIC. Tagged for notability for 6 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Agtx (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Real Security Act of 2006

The article Real Security Act of 2006 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable piece of draft legislation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harris Miller for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harris Miller, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Miller (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]