Jump to content

User talk:DanielRigal/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


al Qaida facilitator and Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri (Section title was originally "reply")

WRT your tags.

I added headings to the tables.

Do I think the term "al Qaida facilitator" is important? Yes. Numerous captives are being held in Guantanamo because someone once accused them of being an "al Qaida facilitator".

What is an "al Qaida facilitator". This phrase is used in numerous official DoD documents. None of them explain what the term means. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WRT Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri. Yes, it

would be good for the article to give more detail about the guy.

I think the material we already know is sufficient to merit coverage.
  • We know the White House claimed he was a "senior al Qaida facilitator";
  • We know the White House claimed his capture was a success;
  • We know he is described as significant in the documents from Guantanamo captives;
  • We know he gave information during his interrogation;
  • We know he disappeared while in US custody, which I think is pretty significant.
  • We don't know what information he offered during his interrogation, other than identifying Ali Ahmed Abdullah.
  • We don't know what he did to deserve capture.
  • We don't know where he is. Geo Swan (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we need to improve not delete these articles. It was never my intention that either article should be deleted. I just wanted to flag up that they needed to be improved. I have made a comment to that affect on the AfD for Al Qaida facilitator. What is needed is to make the articles explain the situation (including what is known and not known) in a way that everybody can understand. Unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge of the subjects to be much help with this. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
HOw did this play out? Mathiastck (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The AfD for Al Qaida facilitator is still ongoing and Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri remains a confusing article which needs work. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Operating context

Hey I beefed up Operating context, and removed your deletion tag. Lemme know if you still find it lacking. I still don't understand the spirit, or perspective, of the deletion process here :) Mathiastck (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kids at SSS

Greetings! Yes, indeed: and you put it well. "Bringing the school into disrepute" is the key phrase. I'm debating, at this point, one or more of the following: 1) hard block of the IP range, giving the contact info of the headmaster, and the names of the kids (that will shut down editing for a quite a large area -- but that would get their attention); 2) telephoning the headmaster as soon as the school is open tomorrow (tonight where I am); 3) writing to them, documenting all of the behavior (much of which is illegal--such as the copyright violation by "MarvinJohnson"; 4) all of the above. It makes me quite indignant to see harassment of a good user (Stepháne) continue for this long, and I think it's time to bring the big hammer down. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks about Golem

ok, thanks. I need lessons. I am a student at university and at wikipedia, too. Again, thanks AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Colleen Wegman

Hello, DanielRigal ... FYI, I touched these articles a few weeks ago:

I agree with your speedy delete request for the first one, and I think that the others could use some more reliable sources that are independent of the wegmans.com website ... maybe a {{Prod}} on the second one would not be declined (I would second it with a {{Prod-2}}) ... the logs show that it has already been speedy deleted once before (CSD A7) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Both Colleen Wegman and Danny Wegman have been redirected to Wegmans Food Markets, so I removed the circular wikilinks in that article. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter Game and Film Spells

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Harry Potter Game and Film Spells. The reason is:

"Indiscriminate and unreferenced list of game trivia" not covered by any CSD

I've put it up for PROD. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Accounting Ethics

Hi. I'm willing to have a look at writing an article for Accounting ethics but I need a bit of context. Can you point me to an example article elsewhere in the Philosophy project so I can see what it is you are looking for? AnthonyUK (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really have an idea where the article should go but if you look at the historic version before I stubbed it you will know what to avoid. Potentially helpful articles might be Medical ethics, Professional ethics, Legal ethics and Business ethics. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal!

Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Woland37 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to revert the removal of valid and current warnings, as I did. Please read the rules and policies before you make unjustified and offensive accusations. I am not going to revert again, because I respect the "three reverts" rule, but if I see a continued pattern of talk page sanitisation then I will draw this to the attention of an admin. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the rules. You may be going by the letter of the law but you go against it's spirit. Please stop harassing me or I will take further action. Thank you. Woland37 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not harrassing you. I already said that I was not going to revert your talk page again and I now see that you are archiving your talk page so that resolves the whole issue. I don't see what the problem is. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on LogMeIn?

There is an IP edit on that subpage. I am not sure if it's vandalism, you might want to check that out here.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It is fine. The page is a work in progress and it is just somebody answering one of the questions I left on it as being unresolved. Thanks anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok just checking.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sardab

This was not nonsense, and I do not believe it elligible for any form of speedy deletion. Nonsense is intelligible- to quote WP:CSD- "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." This was a good faith article written about what seems to be a non-notable location or 'miracle'- I have prodded the article instead. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I couldn't make any sense out of it to work out exactly what the subject actually was or what was being asserted so I thought nonsense or context would be applicable but maybe that was pushing it too far. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Leach

For the record, Archibald Leach was Cary Grant. DS (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogged.com

As part of my admin duties I moved this article that you had tagged for speedy delete to AfD because the original editor placed the hang-on tag. He has come to me at my talk page asking for further assistance thinking that I had made the original call on its problems. You might like to go to his page here and give him some assistance. He seems genuine to me and with a little help might come on board as another fine editor at wikipedia. Appreciate your time.--VS talk 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that it looks like he is acting in good faith and seems confused. I put a note on the article's talk page but maybe he didn't see it. I will leave a note on his talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and thank you.--VS talk 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

I attempted to add Blogged.com article back in again. This time, I've added the section that addresses the question of "notability" as previously suggested. Please take a look and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank you again for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate your comments and they have been very helpful.

Best Regards,

-Kenneth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellidyr (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New Company

Hi, I've just posted my first article. I am someone interested in business chose to try to add to the corp. project (i.e. add smaller companies, that are in the news, to Wikipedia). My first article was already flagged for speedy deletion - I've gone to great pains to try to write this with just the facts, track down articles/press, etc. that talk about the company, and cite references. I'd like to have my first article a success - but would apprecitate some guidance! I also have had trouble uploading the logo to the article (I got help from someone else in Wiki to figure out the "non-free/fair use media" angle of things and have it uploaded, but couldn't get it linked to the article). And finally, since the company is SVM I am trying to figure out what to call it so that when one searches for "SVM" it comes up either as the article or at least as an option. Again, any help/guidance is appreciated...I thought I did my due diligence learning what to do before posting my first article but it looks like I need help!Llcavall (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have added a Welcome message with some helpful links to your talk page. This also explains how to get help if you need it in future.
Please don't take it personally when an article gets deleted. Wikipedia is not a business directory (see WP:NOT) so it is quite common that articles about smaller companies will be deleted even though they are well written and factual. The problem occurs when the company is not notable enough for inclusion (see WP:N). Your articles on SVM is not currently tagged for deletion although there are tags indicating that there are problems. These tags are not meant to be insulting or annoying. They are there to tell people what needs to be fixed. You should try to sort out each problem and then you can take the tags off.
The way to cope with alternative names for articles is to use the Redirect tag, which is what I did with your two articles which were the same. This will enable the article to be found under both names but avoids having two copies which might diverge in content. There are lots of things SVM stands for so there is a disambiguation page at SVM. This lists all the relevant articles. You could add your article to this list. Anybody who searches for SVM will see the list and can choose which SVM they are interested in.
The image stuff is quite complicated and I am probably not the best person to ask as I don't do images much.
I hope this helps a bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Samuel H. Scripps page

Daniel: I hope my work on the page for Samuel H. Scripps has helped the site for this very important person in the field of theatre and dance. I tried to make the piece less of an obit, and I just hope you agree. Thanks Weimar03 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Weimar03
Yes. It is vastly better now. I have taken the tone tag off. Thanks for doing so much work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Goose‎

FYI: An IP removed the PROD tag so you may wish to comment on the AfD I started. Cheers —Travistalk 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks for the note. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eli Soriano's Awards

Hi, I would like to call your attention to the Awards and Recognitions section of the Eliseo_Soriano article. I was unable to source 99.9% of the award-giving-bodies. When I Google them on quotes like "Sons and Daughter of Charity" then add "Philippines" as a qualifier the only website that comes up is the one here in WP.

According to the official website of [Gawad Amerika] "Gawad Amerika is an independent award-giving body based in the USA that recognizes the achievements of Fil-Am people in the field of acting, singing, professional carrers, businesses and the Life Time achievements since 2001." This is the real Gawad Amerika award and Soriano's group, who seem to be creating temporary award giving bodies for the purpose of giving awards to Soriano (and also to a few others so that it will not be so obvious) seem to have undermined the existence of a real Gawad Amerika, who only gives awards to Fil-Am people, and created their own temporary Gawad Amerika.

I was happy to find the Gawad Amerika website because I thought that at last I found an award-giving body that really exists, but alas! it is a different Gawad Amerika.

I also noticed that an award received by their website is listed there. How is it that an award intended for their church's website became an award of Soriano? That award is for the webmaster.

There is so much anomaly in that list. Barangay level appreciations were included, as well as awards issued by an unnotable radio program. All of them should not belong to an encyclopedia.

Thanks! - Shannon Rose (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I think it is well worth posting your analysis to the talk page and suggesting that the awards section should be removed if nobody can provide evidence of its accuracy. If nobody comes up with any reasonable references in week or two then it would be perfectly justified to remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I find the following statement a dizzying fallacy (i.e. nonsense), "In an attempt to end the conflict between the two groups, Soriano challenged the INC executive minister to a one-on-one debate on TV on March 27, 2005 to once and for all end the dispute between the two groups and prove who is telling the truth." How can winning or losing a debate "prove" who is telling the truth? Facts are not established by winning debates. Also, how can such a debate "end the conflict between the two groups"? These words don't seem encyclopedic at all. Any bum on the street, for example, can challenge the President of the United States to a debate. There is a simple lack of logic that is evident in those lines. What is your view regarding this matter. - Shannon Rose (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the phrases you object to are direct quotes then they should be put in quotes and sourced. If they are not direct quotes then the section could be reworded to much better effect. I don't know what the actual situation is. My thought would be to put a CN tag on it and see if anybody comes up with references that make it clear. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag On Food with Anna Olson

I understand what you are trying to get at. See instead of just tagging the article, you could help by editing the article. But really, with information out there, you go on what you have. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But in all actuality, I don't see how it is written in a promotional tone. Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It reads like a promotional synopsis. The use of the word "unique" is blatantly promotional. The phrase "her world of food" is meaningless ad-speak. It would be better if this was fixed by somebody familiar with the subject but I will have a go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I have done it. I chopped out the bit about local produce and events because I wasn't able to find a way a nice way to work it into the new wording but there is no reason why it can't be added back. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Design Eye Position

I have now added a reference. Which "context" do you think is still missing? Which part or parts do you think are "confusing"? I'm not sure how this can be written any more plainly. What else is there to say? Thanks, Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is better than it was. The diagram in the reference is what made it click for me. The first sentence remains a problem. I appreciate that it isn't always easy to write about your chosen field for a general audience. Now that I understand it I will have a go at making it easier to follow. As it is a general term, I will also restructure it so that sections on other fields than military aircraft design can easily be added. If I accidentally introduce any inaccuracies then please correct them. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I have done it now. I am not sure if the link I made to Symbology goes to the correct place. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A very good tidy up, thank you. I made a minor tweak as the interface is rarely purely visual, and in most cases all of it, even the visual part, cannot been seen at once. But yes, the current link to symbology may not be appropriate. "Symbology" is really a bit of US-military-cockpit-design-speak, and does not really mean "the symbolic use of something" in general. An alternative might be simply "symbols on the displays". Um, I'm still not sure what more "context" could be provided. The article no longer seems "confusing to a reader" in any way to me. I agree a diagram would be ideal, but I am unsure of where to get one. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the tags off now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sara Shettleworth article

I figured out how to add a reference to show Shettleworth's importance to her field. I hope it helps.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That certainly helps. I have changed the tags. I have left a refimprove on it because I think it would help to have a few additional references. You can take that tag off if you disagree. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it needs more expansion and refs, so I will keep the tags while I work on the article. Thanks eh! Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequency Partition

Have some patience when you do not get it or ask someone. Why do we need here stub??????? --Tangi-tamma (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to understand that this is a general encyclopaedia not a specialist mathematical one. You need to explain what your subject is without assuming prior knowledge of the subject. Mathematical knowledge will probably be needed to understand the whole article but you need to make sure that the first sentence makes sense to the general reader. You suggest I "ask someone". Please think about this. The whole point of the encyclopaedia is to document and explain knowledge. If it is incomprehensible without asking somebody else to explain it then it is a failure.
Stub is just a way of saying that it is a very short article which needs to grow into a bigger one which fully explains the subject. You can take that off once the article explains the subject fully and is referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You also seem to have 7 references referenced but only two listed. May I suggest that you use the REF tag to make your references. That will keep then straight for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions are well received. I did not understand "You also seem to have 7 references referenced but only two listed". What it is .. two listed.

How can I create a stub? Guide me with one example and I will make use of it. Thanks a lot.

--70.110.217.241 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to use stubs to define potentially and forcibly graphs concepts. I will search how to create stubs, but meanwhile give me steps how to create stubs. Thanks a lot.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob McDowall

Daniel

I am sorry for emailing you. I am trying to sort out that article. It still says it is going to be deleted i am unsure what to do.

--Np097264 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. As long as it has hangon on it the admins will look at the talk page and take that into consideration before they delete it. I am going to take the deletion tag off now anyway. Your text does assert notability and that is enough to avoid speedy deletion. I will add a load of other tags. These will say what needs to be fixed in the article. You can take these off as you address each issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing a bit of tidying up. I have not done it all but it should give you the idea of what needs doing. Try to get the references moved inline so that they are used to back up specific parts of the article. Don't link words more then once and only link things that are relevant. Always refer to the subject by his surname. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and the tone needs to be formal and factual.
I also see that you missed out on the standard welcome/introduction message when joining Wikipedia, which might explain why you are having a bit of a tough time. I am going to put that on your talk page. That will give you a starting point with links to the policies and instructions you will need. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I am still falling over here, I have met him twice and I am a follower of the campaign and the politics behind it. i Dont know what else i can put, I have changed some things and i am looking at more things just now. Alot of the information about his personal life etc has come from Bio Introduction pages at the Scottish Socialist Party site, which I have permission to replicate. Advice would be very much appreciated. Np097264 14:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus on solid factual things that have been covered in the media. You mentioned radio appearances. If you can reference those it will help. Try to keep your own views out of it and keep a neutral tone. I advise against copying the bio verbatim, even with permission. Shorten it down to the bare essentials. In fact it would be good to shorten the whole article.
Be prepared for the possibility that the article might be deleted. It might be that even after you have done your best to demonstrate what he is notable for that this will not be enough. If this happens, please do not take it personally. It will just indicate that the subject was not quite notable enough for inclusion at this stage although he could become so later. You will still be welcome to stay and work on other articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten mutual funds

How is this article any diffrent than the list of "party schools", or the "list of birds". Please explain your reasoning for the proposed deletion of my article. thanks you. Dwilso 21:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will answer on the talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady's High School, Motherwell

Just letting you know that this article has had some sources added; it's still not in the best shape, but you still might want to reconsider your !vote here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Impersonation: Need Admin Help!

{{helpme}} A user called User:DRigal is impersonating me. He has copied my user page and is vandalising the Andrew Regan article. Please can an administrator put a stop to this. I value my good name on Wikipedia and I don't like it being abused to disrupt and vandalise the system. I do not know who is responsible for this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, the best way to get help from Admins is to post the issue on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. It should get dealt with fairly quickly there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 11:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
ConMan mentioned this on IRC and got my attention; I had a look and things seemed to add up supporting your story, so I've blocked the offending account from editing. I'll be heading offline in the near future, but if this continues to be a problem you can avail yourself of AN/I as suggested. Cheers. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Regan

Hi Daniel, Hope you're well. I've just noticed you did some edits and then undid those edits on Andrew Regan's wiki page. Just checking everything is OK. I see you're a new page patroller. If you're happy I'm happy! Thanks, Fi Fionamcgowan (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Somebody was impersonating me to vandalise the article. I undid their changes and the admins kicked them off. Everything is fine now. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, I've had changes made to the page by an unregistered member again today. I will change back, but do want it noted that these were unrequired changes. Cheers Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, there have been extensive edits on Andrew Regans Wiki page. The page had in the past been a victim of vandalism and all copy which was on the page prior to edits over the weekend had been the subject of a detailed m:OTRS discussion. You can read my previous discussions with Wiki monitor Avraham which you can see on my talk page and his archived talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham/Archive_19. I'm curious as to what has brought on this recent bout of edits and appreciate you help with this. Thanks Fionamcgowan (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can only speculate on what other people are thinking. I think that some people are keen for the article not to contain any information that puts Reagan in a bad light and others are keen to remove information that they see as promotional for him. I don't think there is a particular reason for the flurry of edits. The article goes to sleep for a while but when somebody makes one edit it kicks off a round of counter edits until it all dies down again. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, thanks for the insight. I think you are right, one edit leads to another an so on. Thanks for looking at this. Cheers Fionamcgowan (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful, He Might Hear You

Thanks for fixing up the page duplication. I was just about to figure out how to do it and saw that you have taken care of it already. Thanks again. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge Networking

Thanks for your message. You are right: I am a very beginner. I searched in Wikipedia for the term knowledge networking and was surprised that I did not find any article. Only Knowledge Network, but this term is used in a specific commercial context there. Hence, I tried to edit my first article and tried to provide the content which I have. I did not link the article to other articles up to now, as I know that the article is still not ready. In the meantime I have added some additional content and during the next week a student of mine will do some research on further references and content. Please give us some time before deleting the article. I hoped that due to the Wiki principle others will also contribute and will improve the article. I just need a citable entry at Wikipedia - whoever wrote it. Heisss (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other authors edited a lot of valueable content. I have now deleted the "delete"-flag and hope that the article can remain as an initial version. I also heared that the BITKOM will support us in improving the content. Heisss (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Swedish Folk Music

Okay, I'm new to Wikipedia, writing an article on Swedish folk music. I cite my own dissertation basically because all the other sources I could cite, while reliable, and secondary, are also in Swedish. So my question is, if I go through and change all the citations, will the article be deleted because I haven't cited anything in English? David Kaminsky (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem now. I was going to suggest citing both but I just had a look and I see that you have already done that. I think that is the best approach.
You might want to have a look at the Swedish Wikipedia. They almost certainly have an article on the same subject. If you make interwiki links on each article to the other then that may encourage people who work on the Swedish article to contribute to the English one and vice-versa. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision3 and its podcasts

Thanks for your message. Yes it is quite a dilemma, but in the end I decided to tag a couple for speedy and see what happened. On reflection I think your idea of a multi-article Afd nomination is probably better -- at least that way there will be consensus one way or the other! I can do single article Afds using Twinkle, not sure how to go about a multi. – ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been nominating the most obviously non-notable podcasts for speedy deletion and they have been deleted. I will continue to review the remaining ones as time permits - some of them do assert a scintilla of notability so maybe those are better off at Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Laura J. Dahl

Heh - looks like you tagged this with various cleanup templates while I was busy writing the afd nomination for it! Grutness...wha? 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Rollins

Thanks for fixing the vandalism to that article, on behalf of WP:PHILLIES. Killervogel5 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Stinger Report Issue

I was unable to save any of the admin comments from the Stinger site when the site vanished, but was able to save one comment from the blocked account:

I'm not sure what changes were requested of what, but your username is a violation of our policy. You are free to either register a new one or request a quick username change as is given in the template above so that you can resume editing. --slakr\ talk / 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I am seeing a revisionist attitude to the work we have done to apply with the Wiki requirements. We made the edits changes and re-draft, and then the site was removed with one individual cliaming that no changes had been made. I will have to consider taking this to the board if it happens again as it looks like there is one rule for consumer games media and another for amusement trade media.Kwp729 (talk)

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. After the article was deleted, I requested that it be userfied so that I could attempt to improve it. I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg

Hello. Just to let you know that I sent Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg to Images for discussion rather than simply deleting it. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dudemeister1234

Thnx a lot for your feedback! I really appreciate you actually responding rather than just punishing me for reasons I don't understand, like the other people. I make other contributions as well. Anyway, I am still going to publish Haven on my user page, I just won't make articles about it, until when or if it is written about by someone else, or cited, or reviewed, or otherwise well known. Trying to get onlinecomics.net to publish it.Oh, and if you could review what we put out as soon as it becomes available, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemeister1234 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Feedback- Dudemeister1234

You are a good guy, and I pretty much agree with YOU. It's just that my user page should be a place to experiment and do whatever I want. That is my philosophy. However, I will not attempt to create any more encyclopedia articles about it, at least not for a long, long time, when and if it become popular enough. So thanks for your feedback, DanielRigal, and I most sincerely appreciate it! P.S. Could you tell me what you personally think about it, and review pages and issues as they come up? That would be a big help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemeister1234 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Breakout Tour for speedy deletion with the reason "Unreferenced and, by its own admission, entirely speculative". However, "Unreferenced and, by its own admission, entirely speculative" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darker image calendar

Greetings! Discussion has proceeded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darker image calendar; the nominator and myself have both changed from delete to keep !votes. That leaves you as the sole person expressing a recommendation of delete.

We've done some due diligence on the sources, and they check out. The sources also have the LA Times calling it the first mainstream black calendar, so IMHO, we've got clear notability.

Do you still have reservations about the article, or do you agree that it should be kept? If you think it should be kept, please note that on the AfD page, and the discussion can be closed with a speedy keep. Thank you, and I look forward to a comment one way or the other at the AfD page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that it has already been closed. That seems fair enough but I still think that the article needs some work on its tone and I am not sure about the term "hip hop models". Why should black models be considered "hip hop"? White models are not considered "country and western". --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{helpme}}My user page is being repeatedly vandalised by some idiot kid who is not happy that I keep revering his vandalism of Lake Orion Baptist School. As he has made no constructive contributions to Wikipedia may I request that he, and his sockpuppets, be baptised with a banhammer. Many thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He has already had one account blocked and reregistered at least once. He is ignoring final warnings so that seems pretty irredeemable behaviour. I will see if he does it again and go to AIV if he does. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your vote to keep Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i, I confess that as the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism I am a little biased towards keeping these articles for the same reasons you mention. There are less detainees than there are players in the National Hockey League, so I don't think notability should be a problem, as long as we are careful to ensure the articles are improved to be impartial and informative. It seems every week another detainee is listed for deletion, and the same two people vote "Keep", the same two people vote "Delete", and then we just cross our fingers and wait to see what the rest of the world decides :) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there no way to ask for an official general guideline on this rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over for each individual article? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the original concerns were over neutrality and W:COATRACK, so I tried to get the ball rolling on a number of templates (which the Wiki community agreed were allowable in this rare case) which would largely use "identical" text in each of the 900 detainees descriptions of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or whatever - so that if the original language being copy/pasted was "biased", it could be easily fixed across all articles at once. These can be seen at Category:Guantanamo detainee templates, and I'm slowly piping them into more and more articles.
However, since starting to "take care of issues of neutrality", nominators seem to just nominate them anyways, stating that detainees are not notable - and then, as mentioned, about half succeed and half fail. And, as you see on the current AFD, they're fond of saying "omg, look at these ten other similar AFDs that ended in delete!", without pointing out the 8, 10 or 12 identical AFDs that resulted in "Keep". It's a tiring game, really - with too many political biases on both sides - my goal is just to preserve information - so that when a Canadian hears that Omar Khadr is in Guantanamo, or an Afghan hears that Mohamed Jawad is held there, they can hopefully turn to Wikipedia for a neutral and complete run-down of all the information about that individual, presented in-context.
You may be interested in adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp to your watchlist, it should update you any time a related deletion is brought up to vote. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moneyfacts source

Can you integrate this source into the article? I have to eat some food, feeling light-headed and have nothing in the house. Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have much about Moneyfacts and I can't see a way to work it in. Maybe it would be better in the Price comparison article? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pendulum (Swing Band)

You wrote: ". . . need to read the guidelines . . ."

Although I am a good reader, I find the guidelines difficult to wade through. Nevertheless, I read them. I still don't see the problem.

"You need to assert notability clearly,"

Huh? Where, on the page? Other long-standing Wikipedia pages do not do that. The article does mention that the group has performed for more than 15 yrs on at least 3 or 4 continents. That seems more notable than some (perhaps very good but certainly less well-known) Melbourne garage band of which (along w/analogues) there are doezens of pages (probably hundreds or thousands) on WP.

" write in a neutral tone and provide references to prove that what you say is true."

Done. In fact, done several edits ago.

"I have given you the benefit of the doubt and not tagged the article for deletion, yet."

Thanks for that, but why does it still come up saying it's tagged for deletion?

"Please have a go at cleaning up the article."

Yep, done.

"Please also sign your comments."

Ummm . . . isn't that what I do, when I add the four tildes? That's what the explanation page says. Anyway, OK. My user name is (I think) Lefty Bidder.

Lefty bidder (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get shirty with me. I am trying to help you save your article! Somebody else tagged it for deletion again. You can use the "history" tab to see who is doing what. Anyway, I have converted it from a "speedy deletion" to a "proposed deletion"". That gives you five days to work on the article.
Now to answer some specific points:
  • Notability for bands is defined in WP:Band. You need to list records released, chart positions, major venues played and significant TV and radio appearances. All of these things need to be verifiable (see WP:V) so that we can check that this is not a complete hoax. This means references that are from reliable secondary sources which can be checked.
  • You need to remember that you are writing for a serious encyclopaedia, not a fanzine or a blog. The standards are higher. The article still needs a lot of work if it is to survive.
  • As for the other band articles which you think are less notable, go back and look at them. Maybe they do a better job of explaining what notability they have and that is why they survive. If you really think that they are hopelessly unnotable then by all means let me know. I will be happy to tag them for deletion if I agree with you.
--DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Importance of Information

On the Pendulum (Swing Band) page, you added: "This was up for speedy deletion as non-notable but the author has added some reference material that might indicate notability (the book, not the Geocities link, obviously!) so I am converting it to a PROD. I can't tell if this really is a non-notable band or just a badly written article about a notable bad, so I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. PROD will give the author 5 days to read the guides and policies and then try to get the article written and referenced properly. If it is still dud in 5 days time then it will have no hope and should probably be salted."

What's a PROD? What is it that you want? If you'd like to provide a snail-mail address, I can send tonnes (or at least several kg) of printed material, old posters, you-name-it attesting to the importance of this group. Would that help? If you persist in suppressing a simple information page about this well-known group, you will demonstrate that you and/or Wikipedia "have no hope" (to use your terms). Several columnists (in print and on the Web) and bloggers have suggested that Wikipedia is irrelevant to the real world and useless. Are you trying to confirm that for them? It seems a shame, because the concept is such a good one.

Lefty bidder (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep asking questions that show that you have not read the introductory information. This is not your fault. Unfortunately it seems that you missed out on the standard welcome message. I have now added this to your talk page.
PROD is PROposed Deletion. Unlike the speedy deletion, which kicks in straight away, PROD gives 5 days for issues to be resolved and for the deletion to be discussed.
Now, let me explain for what has to be the last time. I am not "suppressing" your information. The problem is that you have failed to provide the information in a manner acceptable to a serious encyclopaedia. Have a look at other articles and notice how they provide good references. Copy that style and you should be fine. Read the guidelines and you will be fine. Make a few moves in the right direction and people will help you but keep on complaining and muttering about suppression and you will quickly burn up what goodwill you have. Please remember that Wikipedia is the largest encyclopaedia in the world. If a few people want to complain and declare it "irrelevant" then nobody here is going to cry much. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

speedies

I think you've forgotten to notify the ed. of a batch of articles, Global Health Outreach and related ones, that you had placed speedies on them. i agree that they dont show any sign of notability, and there does appear to be some COI. They possibly could make one or more valid articles, and in any case it might be a good idea to have given the ed. a chance, not tag 15 minutes after hey were started. I'm declining the speedies, and putting on "underconstruction" tags. If they arent fixed in a week, feel free to nominate for AfD--I think it would be better than another speedy.DGG (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite concerned by this approach as it makes new page patrolling quite impossible. We don't need to take every junk article to AfD. There simply isn't time. When we have blatant, bad faith spamming the best thing is to deal with it as fast as possible so that the spammer gives up and goes away quickly. Spammers are going to laugh at us if every stupid spam article goes to AfD. Baiting Wikipedia will become a sport. I believe that I can tell the difference between an article with a hope and one that has none most of the time. I am prepared to take your point about notifications but I am going to re-add the speedy tags (with notifications this time). I would be grateful if you would leave them for another administrator to accept or decline. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I did find a pre-spam state for Christian Medical and Dental Associations so I reverted that one. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add, that I do feel sorry for people who make hopeless articles in good faith because they didn't read the policies. What I hate to do is waste their time by letting them work extensively on an article which has no chance of ever being acceptable because its subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. It is fairer to them to kill the article quickly. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a Bot which did the notifications automatically? That is why I stopped doing them manually. It didn't seem necessary but now it seems it is again. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
yes, it stopped working-- I think the guy who was running it left-- and the bot people refuse to do another unless we make the notification actually mandatory, and some of the people at WT:CSD keep objecting to doing so until we have a bot, so its a circular situation. Bloody nuisance not having one. BTW I gave that ed. some strong advice to combine the articles into one decent one. DGG (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

List of email servers

Hello Daniel, you deleted CommuniGate Pro from the list of email servers because of the red link. I see you are located in the UK. Not sure if you are deep into email servers but CommuniGate Pro powers all employees of British Airways who do not have a desk and it has quite some market share and should be listed as competitors with less customers are listed. Can you help me to create an entry for CommuniGate Pro? Have a good evening, cheers --Akim65 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of the list articles is that they provide lists of articles on Wikipedia so red links are not eligible for inclusion. I see what you mean about some of the other articles. Some of them are borderline for notability. Unfortunately that doesn't help Communigate Pro.
If you think that CommuniGate Pro deserves an article you should certainly create it. I have no experience with it so I probably can't be of much help with the content but my advice is this:
  • Remember that Comminigate Pro has had bad articles deleted 8 times before. As soon as you recreate it alarm bells will ring in some people's heads. It is even more important than normal that the article gives a good impression from very start.
  • Read the articles for the other mail servers. The better ones of these can give you a good idea of the tone and structure to use. You can also use them to see the correct wiki tags to use.
  • Go looking for references in reliable independent sources before you edit anything. You should get a couple of these into the first cut of the article. If you have trouble finding good references then think twice about creating the article.
  • Make a simple, clear but not promotional statement of notability in the introduction.
  • Don't write too much initially. Write a short stub (with a couple of references) and then build it up carefully, adding references at each stage. Use a mixture of independent references and Communigate's own information.
--DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Daniel, thanks much for your advise, very much appeciated. With references you mean that the product is listed in other directories? Or written about in media? Or a concrete list of customers? Kind regards -- --Akim65 (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Written about in the media is by far the best thing. Reviews or awards by independent IT publications are good. Directories are not so good as lots of things are listed in directories which are not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. The customer list is not normally much use in itself but if any of the customers has issued a press release or public statement concerning the product then that might be usable.
The important thing to remember is that the references are there for two reasons. They prove the notability of the subject and they provide verifiability for the content. See WP:N and WP:V for more details. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Importance of Fandom

Is Ear-Fall-Off Floyd important? Is fandom important? A case can be made, I'm sure, that unless something is professionally published, it is of no lasting interest. But, then, a case can be made that comic books are of no lasting interest, and I think I remember reading somewhere that Wikipedia wants an article on every comic book ever (professionally) published.

When I write an article on fandom, which I do rarely, I limit myself to what seems to me, looking back over forty years, note-worthy. Ear-Fall-Off Floyd seems a lot more note-worthy to me than, say, Bouncing Boy or Congo Bill or Henry Pym. And Henry Pym is rated TOP importance.

Rick Norwood (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are wrong. All I am saying is that it should be possible to find some coverage of these topics if they are notable. That said, I do recognise that fandom is one of those things which has a large underground following with minimal coverage is recognised reliable sources. This does make it hard to reference articles.
If something is published as fandom and gets wider recognition in a provable way then I have no problem with it being included. Problems occur when the notability is not provable. How can we make a distinction between your judgement based on sound experience and somebody else who claims knowledge but seems to just be putting in obscure personal favourites? It could open the floodgates to a lot of rubbish.
Fortunately, I am confident that there is a way out this problem. I assume that there are magazines or other reliable sources which review and discuss comics fandom to some extent. If you can find references in these which support the character and/or fanzine as being a major player then that would be enough to solve the problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Thanks for your note. A few quick point: sorry that these editors are being so unconstructive and insulting; I believe kjkjkj or whatever it is to be a sockpuppet of Nicholaas j Smith, an editor that has been banned so many times (and has it in for me). As for the Austrian school and their supporters: not considered very important in serious academic circles, very popular online. Go figure. (By the way, I actually thought at first that your Phlogiston reference was a specific reference since Paul Krugman has said specifically he thinks Austrian economics to be "about as worthy of serious study as the Phlogiston theory of fire." See slate article here.
I do not support being any more specific: the mainstream theory of inflation is what it is. The other is known as monetary inflation. The Austrians and their ilk for some reason are obsessed with ensuring that their theory be included in every web page and wikipedia despite its relatively low profile (except amongst hard core libertarians). I think that's undue attention and will continue to hack it back.--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Trapp Family

Thank you for your help in the article Rupert von Trapp. Now I'll write the articles about his siblings: Hedwig, Johanna and Martina.

I hope, there are enough ressources for this articles.

I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Freeview

Interested to see that you "pulled" my edit regarding perceptions of HD on Freeview. I am a long-term user of Wiki, but a relative newcomer to adding content. I am particularly bemused by your comments "no evidence" and "no reference", since I didn't realize I had to produce a legally watertight case to edit content(?!).

My evidence is that I know several people in the home entertainment retail industry and I can assure you that some customers (I hesitate to classify, but we're not talking about 20- and 30-somethings, we're talking about 40+ and lower income groups) are highly confused by the technicalities behind digital broadcasting and many believe that Freeview = HD. Can I produce marketing research to prove this? Obviously not. Am I expected to???

Regarding "no reference" for the BBC-HD tests on Freeview, my information on these was gleaned from two other Wiki pages. These other pages mention the specific site (Guildford). Do you have a problem with this or are you trying to protect confidential information?

Wrammie (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sad though it may sound, there are some people who put stuff in Wikipedia which is not true, either deliberately or due to misunderstandings. We don't want to get into fights about who is right and who is wrong about things that can't be proved. That is why there is the policy on verifiability, so that everything can be checked. This does mean that stuff that we know from personal experience doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless we can find anything published in a reliable source to back it up. If you can find anything to back up what you said then by all means put it back in with the references.
This does mean that contributing to Wikipedia is maybe more work than you expected, but please don't let that put you off. It is worth the effort. I have put the standard welcome message on your talk page. This has links to all the polices and should help to explain why things are done the way they are. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The head's up

Thank you for warning me about Mainstream. I'll certainly keep that in mind. Also, I think it is nice to know that you can disagree as editors but agree as persons :)

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The tag

Daniel,

I still don't understand the tag. Mainstreamers and Austrians will never reach consensus. The former have fabricated a new meaning of the word inflation, whereas the former hold on to the original definition. Because they disagree on the actual meaning of the word, they also disagree on the causes, effects and ways to control it. That will never change. You wouldn't get a consensus here, even if you'd raise Rothbard, Friedman and Keynes from their graves.

That said, can you please explain exactly how this expert would be able contribute? What exactly is it that you'd expect him to do? I'll leave the tag for now, but unless you can give a detalied and above all sensible answer to the questions above, I will remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw you left a message on the talk page. I havn't had time to reply yet. I will do it soon. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good attempt

To be constructive at inflation. I, for one, appreciate your attempts to be reasonable. I think it might simply be better to do a request for comment.--Gregalton (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way: Truthfromagunboat or whatever he is called is a sockpuppet of Karmaisking, not Nicolaas Smith (Mainstream). Pretty much obvious from my talkpage now.--Gregalton (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. It is easy to get the trolls confused. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "single issue obsessive". "Troll" is so harsh on the ear...--TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Come now, good folks, lets not be hostile! We all want the same thing, to serve the readers of WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have finally realized what Wikipedia is all about and also that I should never have come here. You will never see me on Wikipedia again.
Nicolaas Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.0.72 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your questions:

  • No, Austrian School writers are almost never published anywhere except in their own journals.
  • As far as I know, there is not a single self-identified Austrian who is a tenured faculty member in the Economics dept of an accredited university.
  • Ron Paul is their most visible supporter. They are not taken seriously by any major political party.
  • You are correct in observing that the Austrian school is very localised to the US, mainly among some economic Libertarians there. They have no following in Austria.
  • They made some important contributions about 100 years ago, that have long since been incorporated into mainstream economics. However, they still claim that they are the only ones with those insights (eg. ordinal vs cardinal utility).

The most striking aspect about 'Austrians' is that they cling to messy verbal arguments, and reject real world observation, methods long ago rejected by real economists. In my mind, this identifies them as pseudoscience. lk (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally

Finally someone here tells me a bit about wiki and user talk pages. USER: T****** K**** was waaaaay too much of a problem, rude, and not a help at all; but you actually took the time to respond. Endwits (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers on Austrianism

Daniel,

below are answser to your questions stated on LK's talk page, September 6th:

Austrian School academics who are on the staff of accredited universities include: Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Ralph Raico, Hans Hoppe, Guido Hülsmann, Roderick T. Long, Yuri Matltzev, Joseph T. Salerno, Ropert P. Murphy and many more. Both DiLorenzo and Woods, jr. have authored several best selling books.

Austrians tend to stay away from politics, as they are for the most part classical liberals (Mises tradition) or anarcho-capitlist (Rothbard traditions). In sharp contrast to mainstream economists and people like LK, they realize that scientific truths are not decided on ballots, but through theoretical arguements.

Ron Paul, who is a classical liberal of the Mises tradition, was by far the star of the GOP primaries as far as the grass roots go. His money bombs are without paralel in American political history, as the money did not come from big special interest groups, but from ordinary people around the world. According to all surveys, he won each and everyone of the televised debates, usually by a huge margin. No other candidate got anywhere near as much attention when Google did their interviews. His Campaign for Liberty draws tens of thousands of people, especially young people, and this guy is 74 years old.

Many things set Austrians apart from mainstreamers. First off, they reject the use of math and the methodology of the natural sciences when doing economic research, as economics is a social science, something mainstreamers seem unable to grasp. They use a deductive logic, deriving economic laws from known axioms. This method is called praxeology. According to Austrians, empirical studies can only show what happened, not why it happened. Therefore, they don't think one can falsify or prove an economic theory. Even in the cases of North and South Korea or East and West Germany, did they concede that the fall out proved that capitalism is superior to socialism. Mises already explained that in the 1920s in his book "Socialism".

Mainstreamers use flawed and in most cases completely illogical mathematical models or made up scenarios, such as perfect competition, and then try to explain various phenomena from that. Naturally, as their very outset is completely off, they never reach a viable conclusion or are able to understand why things went as they did. Irwing Fisher's statement the weeks before Wall Street and the New Deal policies are ample examples of that.

Mainstream economic theory has dominated the economic policies from the 20th century. Is there anyone here who can actually claim that they've done a good job? Wall Street, the New Deal, the runaway inflation of the 1970s, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dot.com bubble and the present credit crunch. They're all the reslut of mainstream economic policy.

The ironic thing is that mainstreamers accuse Austrians of ignoring the real world. Tell me, just how much denial must one be in to be able to block out all the economic disaster mainstream economic policies have caused during the last 100 years, and are still causing today?

On the "fringe" issue. Today in the US, the people who advocate honoring the constitution, respecting civil rights and liberties, oppose militarism and the fascist big government - big business corporatism are in the minority. Do you think civil liberties and rights should be suspended because the major political parties advocate that? Do you think the Executive Branch should be given carte blanche do whatever it wants, such as print massive amounts of money and wage unconstitutional wars?

The ones who promote the view of the majority on the expense of the minority have throughout history been those that have made communism, fascism and nazism possible. People like that, are responisble for the devastation brought by the New Deal. You think about that for a moment.

Misessus (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that when before so you didn't need to copy it. In fact, it was that very text which I was commenting on in my last message. I have opinions of some of your views but Wikipedia is not a place for us to debate our opinions and I don't think it would serve any purpose to go into it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. As I said before, an encyclopaedia never leads the debate on a subject. I have my own view on political and economic matters but I would never seek to misuse Wikipedia by using it as a venue to advocate them. Wikipedia is too important too the world to be allowed to get sidetracked in this way. Please do not try to extrapolate my personal views from this.
I sense that you are getting frustrated here and that you feel the need to repeat yourself over and over. The problem is that much of the above are not the things you need to convince us of, so repeating them doesn't help.
I am interested to know whether you are engaging with other, more appropriate, venues for debate on these topics? I am sure that there are many ways in which you can advocate your views in places which are appropriate for discussion. You could start a blog, write to newspapers and magazines. Surely there must be many internet forums and newsgroups where you could reach a wide audience of people who would be very happy to discuss these things with you. I am not saying that you should leave Wikipedia, but I am suggesting that you take your advocacy elsewhere and contribute to Wikipedia in a more neutral way. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So now you find faults in answering your questions. Great. But you're right about WP, it is too important to have let it be ruined by unknowledgable people. And if anyone has done any advocating here, its you, Greg, LK and people like you, doing what you can to keep knowledge away from the readers, promoting only your own views. Don't you have any sense of self awareness at all?

Misessus (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics

Hi Daniel,

I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.

thanks, lk (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Motherboard/mainboard

Hello,

You never responded to my comment about bring back the mainboard article cause i agree with you on that there is mainboard but mainboard is not a motherboard, a motherboard is now seen as central part of any comptuers today--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC) pc motherboard suggest that it only gets used for pcs which is not true, servers are not pcs, but they use mtoerboards, apple mac are pc but they use motherboards etc.

Sorry for not replying. The problem with the phrase mainboard is that I am pretty sure that it is also used for the primary card (normally with a CPU) in a backplane based system so that isn't really the same thing as a non-PC motherboard in all circumstances. I will think about it a bit more. Don't let this put you off working on the article. Whether we decide to move it to a different name or not it still needs work. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I cant agree more hopefully we can sort something out that will mean the article name resemble the article content and means we can have the second article that is to do with non-standard motherboards/mainboards--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Huns

Hi, Daniel. Thank you for fixing the redirects. I missed them. The ip 82.6.29.26 had changed all the redirects (White Huns & Red Huns) and the introductory paragraphs of Hephthalite and Xionites to Huna (people). Just to be on the safe side, all the contributions of this ip should be checked. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge networking

I read the article. It is essentially a "let's sit down and talk" but couched in all kinds of scientific fluff to make it sound so much more important. I myself think a simple redirect to Conversation would be more than enough. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

International Indian School, Riyadh

I removed the speedy tag from International Indian School, Riyadh because there is a consensus that all high schools are notable and this school includes the high school grades. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thermoplan AG

I added some references to Thermoplan AG which I think are enough to establish notability. I agree that the article should be rewritten if it is kept. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Hello. I noticed today that you were doing newpages patrolling but are not marking some of the pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks. Waterden (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

M98 Bravo

Daniel, the article M98 Bravo is a privately created aricle using info directly from the manufacturer's website so it may seem like an advertisment. Please do not delete this article as it is the first article that hasn't been deleted within 48 hours.--Bismarck43 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I can't delete articles. The article is now better than it was, so I will take some of the tags off. The main thing you need to do now is prove notability by showing that there is independent coverage of the subject by adding more references which are not to the manufacturer's site. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


JJS

Thank You so Much DanielRigal for helping me in my article. I really appreciate it... More Power to you. --(Jjskarate (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC))


Gulf Coast Archive and Museum

Thanks for the revisions on the web page. I've done a lot of copy revisions and added a lot of external links today. Could you look at where it's at now and let me know if I'm heading in the right direction, to remove the tags? There is still quite a bit of editing to do under the Activities section, but I didn't want to invest a lot of time until I know if I'm doing this correctly. Thanks, Brandon Wolf brandon_wolf@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by GulfCoastMuseum (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a dilemma. You don't want to do too much work until you are sure the article is safe from deletion but it needs work to make it safe. Here is what I suggest:
I think you need to get references that prove notability. That means finding proof that the museum or events at the museum have been written about in reliable sources. Mainstream media or academic publications are best. Specialist media is OK, so long as it is independent of the museum, but blogs and forums are no good. I looked on the Museum's page where it listed press coverage. This was not very encouraging but maybe you can use some of that and find something else. Has the museum or one of its exhibitions ever been reviewed in a newspaper or magazine? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The next problem is conflict of interest. Ideally, it should not be you writing about the museum because you are involved with it. It isn't absolutely banned but it is discouraged. Normally, when people from organisations write about their projects they find it hard to get the tone right.
I think you should cut most of the article down and try to leave a smaller article with references which other people can build up if they want to. People who want to know more about the museum can always follow the link to the museum's own site.
I see that you missed out on the standard Wikipedia welcome message. I have added that to your talk page. This provides links to the guides and policies. That should make life easier for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I have added a number of press articles on the GCAM page. They are from a Houston gay newspaper The Montrose Voice, a Texas gay magazine Upfront, Houston's daily newspaper The Houston Chronicle, Houston weekly newsmagazine The Houston Press, and Holocaust Memorial Houston Museum. Will this qualify for notability?

Also, I checked my Talk Page, but couldn't find the Welcome Message you added yesterday. I saw it briefly, then it went away.

Thank you. GulfCoastMuseum (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Brandon Wolf

JJS Karate Dojo

I was really inspired for the reason that my article "Jack & Jill School" was accepted and pass the stardard of wikipedia and that's because of your support and expertise...

I try to come up again with new article focusing on the dojo and the karate training of our kids but somehow it give my a hard time passing the standard esp. the NOTABILITY. I've tried to put all the referrences that needed to survived in my article but some of the User/Admin suggested to delete it but in the end they decided to MERGE my article to Jack & Jill School.

If you have a free time could you please visit my article and somehow kindly help/do some changes so that my article can survived or make it pass the standard. THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Jjskarate (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class 150

Hi Daniel. Just in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, I've replied to your recent comment here. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Full flavored cigarettes

Okay I am from the United States and many American cigarette brands such as Doral or Basic are labeled "Full Flavor". Now some brands like Marlboro and Camel are labeled "Reds" and "Filters" respectively. Heegoop, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

That's OK. I didn't think you had made it up but it looks like it isn't a fully official term either. It looks like it isn't going to be notable enough to keep the article but what you can do is explain about the different types of cigarettes on the cigarette article instead. If you can find any references in which the branding of types of cigarettes is discussed then that will help a lot. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Championship Gaming Series teams

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Championship Gaming Series teams, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 3D.NY. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a big content merge so this is intentional. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
When merging, you need to say where you have merged the content from. This is important due to attribution requirements under the GFDL, as well as showing other editors what you're doing. For example, you would say in the edit summary "Merging content from London Mint", not just copy and paste content into List of Championship Gaming Series teams with no way of seeing who were the original authors of the content. In the London Mint article, you would say "Merging content into List of Championship Gaming Series teams". Somno (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I will try to do this better next time. Please bear in mind that this is the first time I did a major merge and that I have already acknowledged that I was not the best person to do it. I only did it because it was clear that nobody else was going to do it and that people were going to keep on voting "merge" in the AfDs and then not actually merging. I did it as best I could under the circumstances. I did put information on the talk page disclaiming authorship and making it clear what had happened. I have now added the list of merged articles to the talk page as an easier way to back track to the original histories. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries -- good on you for actually doing the merge in the first place. The tone of my message was harsher than I intended - it was supposed to provide helpful information for the future, not a scolding!! :) I came across the article from suspected copyright violations, which is where things get listed automatically when they're tagged by CorenSearchBot. At first glance, the article looked like a copy-paste move, but when I saw it was done by an established editor and the info on the talk page, things made more sense. ;) Regards, Somno (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Please check my answer to your deletion comment. Thanks, Editor br (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In view of your comments about History of marketing, Daniel, I have checked out that article, and left some comments on its talk page. To me that topic makes the cut, but the article as it stands does not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As neither of us are fully qualified to sort all this out, I have tagged it for expert help. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your approach. I am able to see what is imperfect in the article, but I am unable to correct the imperfections. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

male counterpart

I didn't know how to phrase this. Cock rock would be the opposite of teeny booper rock. It attracts boys instead of girls. The source said that cock rock "stands in stark contrast to teeny booper rock", so I thought that I should mention it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the reference does makes any connection between the two so the notion that one is a male and one is a female version of the other is simply not supported. It doesn't say that they are opposites either. "Stark contrast" just means that they are two youth cultures which are significantly different. I don't think there is any reason to mention cock rock at all in the article unless you can find some source supporting a link. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanielRigal/2008&oldid=1140683765"