User talk:DanielRigal/2009

Proposed deletion of Consummation (usage)

{{subst:User:Jerzy/tbcore|Proposed deletion of Consummation (usage)|new=yes}}

(Note: Not quite sure what the above is meant to do but preserving it anyway for completeness. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism deleted article

Next time you find an article like Narhari Sonar, please nominate for deletion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism, instead of adding a blank tag. To let you know Narhari Sonar is a notable Varkari saint, who finds a reference in FA Vithoba. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was blank of any useful content. It was useless. It was not an article. It would have been dishonest for me to have put a stub tag on it because it wasn't a valid stub. By deleting it we have lost nothing. You can make a new article any time you like, and if it has just one sentence of coherent information it will already be better then the old one. I have left a note about the saint articles on the Project Hinduism talk page. I have not looked at them all but based on a random sample I think that many of them are deletable as they stand. Nobody else has replied to this but you clearly have an interest in the subject. You might want to see if you can do anything to improve the situation. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cam Arsenault" speedy deletion

Why is my article being deleted?

Did I not put that much info on it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam12343 (talk • contribs)

Cam Arsenault is my page

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not for self promotion. People should not make articles about themselves or other people who do not meet the notability criteria. Nobody owns any of the articles. They are kept, modified or deleted depending on what is best for Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Pacheco

I've commented on this AFD and would like to hear your feedback. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ben Brown (DJ)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ben Brown (DJ), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brown (DJ). Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Diogenes in Islam

To label this as an "orphan article", when is has links to half-a-dozen other Wikipedia articles would seem not very appropriate. The topic is discussed in various books and in numerous internet articles; so it could be said to be of of current interest.0XQ (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Orphan" refers to the articles that link to it not from it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked it again. It is still orphaned. No other articles link to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Waffles

I'm open to a compromise on the Waffle page, but I think there are some key changes that need to be in place. Your "undo" reinstated an incorrect image of a Liege waffle (Liege waffles do not use Swedish nib sugar, as pictured), removed the reference to waffles also being made from dough (as Liege waffles are), and removed the clarification of "Belgian Waffles" - a waffle variety that, while popular, does not actually exist. The first two of these issues are crucial - the latter is merely valuable information that can help disambiguated the improperly used concept of "Belgian Waffles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amw1978dc (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I could see that there were some good things in your change to Waffle but there were problems as well. My advice is to redo just the uncontroversial fixes at first being careful to preserve the wikilinks etc. For the rest, readd one item at a time with a reference to back it up. If you think a point is arguable then it might be best to ask what people think on the talk page first. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Gregory Orchestra

Hi Daniel, I am new to this but felt compelled to try to post an artcile on the Dan Gregory Orchestra. There is very little if any info on him. My Uncle Ray gave me a photo of himself in the Dan Gregory orchestra when he died. I also found a photo that was autographed by many members of that band. The only reference I could find online was wikipedia and andy sanella. I contacted the harrisburg pennsylvania library and Ken Frew contacted me back as did the organizer for one of the Harrisburg, PA high schools. She's in her late 60's and so is Ken Frew. My only true references are them. Ken Frew's father was the 1st trumpet player for Dan Gregory for over a decade and I qoute him in this article. I believe you should give much leway in my article for 3 main reasons 1-The article is America's ONLY online source for the Dan Gregory Orchestra 2-My main reference is the lead trumpet player's son who played with Dan Gregory for over 15 years ( a research librarian is a notable and reliable source especially in the Hometown of the Musician in subject 3-I am not trying to promote a website or business of any sort. Rather, I am trying to give some basic (although not very thorough) information of a big band/dance band that many regional and even a couple nationally known musicians played and more appropriately, toured with to get their starts in the music profession. Including Herb Taylor (elvis and benny goodman)

Most of these people are dead now, but their decendants are still around. I understand your hesitancy to publish this, but considering the photos and the quotes from Dan Gregory's leadman, I would appreciate your input and even you editing this article. Kenny Frew of the Dan Gregory Orchestra is akin to Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. The "silent lead player" I am in the process of getting published third party and written documentation from the library in Harrisburg. Until proven otherwise, these are reliable sources for a rather obscure touring dance band of the great depression. I would appreciate any input from you Sincerely, Elrip1 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Larry Ripani Waukesha, Wisconsin USA (Home of Les Paul and The Bodeans)

I am sorry but everything you say above just confirms that the article should be deleted. Please read the notability criteria for inclusion and you will see that Wikipedia simply can't have articles that are about "obscure" subjects or which contain original research or can't be verified through reliable sources. From what you say, it is clear that this is never going to be possible for you to achieve on this subject. I appreciate your desire to write about the subject and research it more but Wikipedia is not appropriate for this sort of thing. This is not to say that you, yourself, are unwelcome. I am sure that you can help with other articles related to big bands. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for yor response. The article is much improved and accurate thanks to you. I appreciated your efforts. Nicely done by you and/or your staff! Elrip1 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Elrip1 LarryElrip1 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrip1 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandwellers

No problem. I congratulate you on your restraint and professionalism. I was not aware of the author's response to you until after I reinstated your tags. Sorry you had to experience it. Thanks for setting it for AfD and for your work on Wikipedia. ttonyb1 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your fix-ups to my new entry on Mitch Stewart. My account is brand-new so I was unable to do the re-direct after I realized I had not capitalized his last name. Glad my first article made the cut! - Arboresce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboresce (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

S Savey

I remember a load, suddenly, of accounts turning up round the Sarey Savey article which I think has been up and down like a yoyo. Since I'm not an admin I can't track it down I fear. but you know when the hairs on the back of your neck register? That is all the supposed evidence I have. A bad feeling. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All I have in my watchlist is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy (2nd nomination), so I didn't pay enough attention at the time. I've never reported a suspected Sock before! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your bad feeling. Somebody is wasting our time by recreating this stuff but I am not sure if it is some sort of organised sock-troll or just a 12 year old kid with an exaggerated sense of their own importance. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude 88888

why is it, that whenever I contact one of you patrollers/deleters, one of my or one of my friend's pages gets deleted????? oh, and I did not create the Runescape 33 page, Runescape 33 did.Dude 88888 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who creates what. What matters is whether it meets the inclusion criteria. If people make one page which doesn't meet the criteria then the obvious thing for us to do is the check what else they have been doing. It isn't a vendetta. It is just us trying to keep Wikipedia tidy and accurate. If you contribute constructively from now on you won't have any more trouble. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Leblanc

• Don't know where you got the impression I was 'fighting to keep' this article, but I do object to huge deletions of information with no edit summary. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That was bad wording on my part. I just saw that you had reverted his removal of the crappy text a couple of times and it seemed to be a waste of your efforts. You were perfectly right to warn him that he has no right to blank out chunks of the article, even if he did add them himself in the first place. It is just that that the text in question is so worthless (POV, unreferenced, bad style) that this is one strange occasion when two wrongs made a right and his blanking was (unintentionally) improving the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, I tend to agree with you, just hate blanking of info with no explanation! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian Christian Stele (2nd nomination)

It has been proposed that Nestorian Stele be renamed and moved to Memorial of the Propagation in China of the Luminous Religion from Daqin. Please give your views on the talk page for this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art

Give me some time to flesh this article out and you will see that it is very much credulous. Will you give me some time please? Artintegrated (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It is an abuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an art platform. Giving you more time would not help. What you need to do is get a Wiki of your own which you can use as an art platform. Anyway, it is on AfD now. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artintegrated (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/2009/02/14/what-is-wikipedia-art/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artintegrated (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. This makes it very clear that blogs are not reliable sources and can't be used as references. Can you imagine the rubbish we would have in Wikipedia if everything on a blog was treated as a reliable reference? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said to use it for a reference. I was asking if you were aware of it is all. Artintegrated (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who changed my personal history pertaining to the "Wikipedia Art" page??? This should not have been deleted. This is my work and I want it back. Artintegrated (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly which content you are talking about. I am not an administrator so I don't have access to deleted content, if it is not in the normal article histories. Don't worry though. I am sure that there will not be a problem for you to get your deleted content back. Please ask an administrator to email it to you. You will need to explain exactly which content it is you are asking about. If you are not sure how to get in touch with the administrators then the easiest thing is to make a note on your own talk page and tag it with {{helpme}}. Somebody who can help will get in touch with you. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Scott Kildall

Hi Daniel,

It has come to my attention that the Scott Kildall page on Wikipedia (I am Scott Kildall, by the way) was marked by you as both "conflict of interest" and something that does not meet the "notability guideline for biographies."

I am curious what about the article didn't seem correct to you and and what you would do to restore it to be properly referenced.

I am also unsure as to what the "conflict of interest" may be. If you look at the page history, I did make one edit to my own page on Sept 4th, 2008, but this was to update the external links section. I do not believe that this would constitute a "major" contribution to the article.

I have done such minor edits on the Wikipedia pages for a number of other video artists, so this would be in accordance with my own history as a Wikipedia contributor.

Sincerely, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyscott (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not to do with your own edit. My concern is that the article was substantially written by Nathaniel Stern who is a collaborator of yours. Please note that COI does not always indicate bad faith. It can simply mean a problem with objectivity due to close involvement with the subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify things: Nathaniel Stern and I have collaborated on just the Wikipedia Art project. This was created 10 months after the Wikipedia article that Nathaniel originally posted (Apr 14 2008). He had become familiar with my work as a colleague. We later collaborated on the Wikipedia Art project (Feb 14 2009). I can understand without knowing this how you would tag it as a COI since otherwise it could seem suspicious. I would ask you to reconsider the COI given this information. --Luckyscott —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for explaining that. I have removed the COI tag. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up and the conversation. I am also curious about the notability tag. What would be the reasoning for this? I am happy to provide better references, if these are deemed needed, but would like to shy away from editing my own article.--Luckyscott —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

I think that is sensible. If you can suggest for a reference showing significant coverage by a reliable (preferably mainstream) source I will add that and remove the tag. (BTW: Please note that I may not reply to messages as promptly during the week as I do at weekends so please don't assume I am ignoring you if I don't respond straight away.) --DanielRigal (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I updated the old references and added new ones. I have now referenced several newspaper articles, one book and a television segment, in addition to some electronic articles in some well-established sources. Let me know if you think this is sufficient. --Luckyscott —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

Logainm.ie

Hi Daniel, I added some external sources. I can get more if necessary. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Finnegan (Irish Criminal)

Hi, I changed the reason for speedy deletion from db-person to db-vandalism. It's about the fourth version of the article I have seen. I left a message on the creator's talk page which explains the reasons. It's a complete and utter hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FiF file format

You're right, this isn't "Falkman image format", but FIF does stand for a well-known image format, so I went ahead and created a stub for "fractal image format". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this: diff. I listed it in error and then tried to rectify my mistake. I appreciate the helping hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Party

The article should be updated, i posted some proofs that show how the nazi party was a far left party, instead of a right party, im proving that with info taken from wiki, but i can do it with info from other websites, the discussion page is open to that kind of comments and you should respect that, im posting proofs, not spamming nor vandalizing and since its not a forum, my opinions should be kept there because im providing some information so wiki can be improved. 190.182.56.52 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your contribution was not constructive. First of all, you can't prove things by referencing Wikipedia itself. You have to use proper historical sources. Secondly, you have to accept that the view that the Nazis were left wing is a pretty fringe one. It is held by a very few serious historians. This is why we are debating the extent to which it should be included at all. Thirdly, please understand that your job is not to persuade us of a particular viewpoint's truth, only of whether it is a significant, mainstream opinion worthy of inclusion. Posting large and incoherent arguments which miss these points is not helpful. We have rules against Original Research and Original Synthesis. If you can refine your arguments and cast them within the terms of discussion for improving the article then your comments will not be removed. I can't promise that they will be accepted but they will at least be considered. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup search results

Hi, Daniel. You said on your user page that you are Deletionist. In this case, maybe you are interested to use User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult tool (and log) and add it on your watchlist. This is a list created by bot about the problematic new articles. They are not all to be deleted – vice versa, I think that most of them are worth to be improved, but definitely there is also lot of nonsense and non-notable promotional material. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Rigal Thank you for your response about the article I statrted on fish mortality. I was trying to add some refrences and sources but I failed to do that. Could you please help. Thank you. Fisheries Biologist (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Message

I have no problem with what you have said, but the problem I have with Khalsaburg, is he is deleting references with ISBN numbers for no reason and calling them obsufication. He replaces them with his own view. This is unacceptable on wikipedia. As for religious view, I actually share most of the views of Khalsaburg, but I am also aware, that is a minority Sikh view. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you could help me set up mediation. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with mediation. The process is here Wikipedia:Mediation. You have to work your way up through the levels of formality before you can request a full mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for comment seems to come before full mediation. It might be sufficient. If it attracts more people to look over the articles in question and keep them on their watchlists then future problems will be seen by more people and they can help keep balance. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted one of the mediators to kick things off. I really don't want to be sen as the bad guy here, and I think any mediation will reveal that I have been trying to source primary references. Thanks for your words, as I sometimes need to be reminded to not take deletion of my edits personally. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Mathews

Peter Mathews in the last election won 17% of the 34th district (according to the Secretary of State, California) as a write in a ballot in the 2008 elections making him a contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Before that in 1996 he lost the election by only 6 points. Peter Mathews is currently ON THE BALLOT for the 2010 Congressional Elections making him a leading contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Peter Mathews was the leading organizer and founder of an organization which protested the rising tuitions in California Community Colleges in the early 90s.If you also go to the youtube channel Power4People, Mathews has been interviewed a myriad of occasions by NBC news. He doesn't have a time machine but it's worth mentioning that there is no harm in rerunning for a Congressional seat Daniel. Abe Lincoln lost several House elections before he was elected, what Mathew's is doing is purely American. And yes it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his pocket. Angora. He has met most of the requirements. He is a viable local candidate which won 17% of the popular vote in a rather large district in 2008 and lost by 6 points in a previous election in 1996. He has been interviewed by NBC and various other news outlets. For the special 2008 edition of Esquire, Peter Mathews was nominated as a better candidate over incumbent Laura Richardson. Granted, the page has some holes for now, due to it being started up but in due time we'll be able to incorporate more into the page. Within a few weeks, which like most wikipedia pages, will be sufficient time to get things going. --Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--

You don't have to paste this in multiple places. I saw it on the AfD discussion.

You are making claims of serious coverage which should be enough to save the article if you rewrite it from scratch using that coverage as sources and references (not YouTube, but the stuff that meets wp:rs). Pasting in his 2006 election pamphlet (which was why I joked about a time machine) as a starting point was a huge mistake but there is still time to improve things however I am very concerned that you are only interested in editing this one article. That could indicate a conflict of interests, in which case you are doing more harm than good by trying to write an article.

I have added the standard welcome message to your talk page, as I see that you missed out on it originally. This has guidance on how to write and reference articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character IQs

Hello! I am doing some searching and it does appear the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Might you please reconsider so that we can use what we can from it for these purposes? And as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this sounds like an good idea for a new article but I suspect that the portrayal of intelligence generally, rather than IQ in particular, will be the best subject. IQ is quite a new subject whereas intelligence has been written about for many centuries. I don't think it is worth trying to twist the article currently at AfD into this new shape. I think starting from scratch with a title like Intelligence in fiction would be better. It also means that you don't have to wait for the AfD to finish. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Banksy

please don't remove sourced work as you did on the Banksy page, use the talk page first, and if you did you would see that the ref is on the reliable notice board, it up for discussion not removal. I will revert your edit please continue to express your concerns at the notice board or talk page--86.11.100.50 (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even add it in an appropriate place within the article. Other people have also reverted it. Please stop readding it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The ref is fine, and has been given the ok at the reliable noto notice board, so really it not down to you to remove it, also please remeber the the3RR Rule I believe you have one more left--86.11.100.50 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. You see it isn't only me removing it. I think we have a clear consensus that this is not appropriate content in the form you insist on adding it. The wp:3rr applies to you as well. If you keep reinserting the same content then you will be in breach of it. I suggest you ask yourself why people have a problem with your content, rather than just adding it back. The reason is simple: It is not appropriate to make a complete new section, at the top of the article, to discuss the speculative attribution of a single work to Banksy, even if it is referenced. There are many such speculative attributions. There is no reason for this one to get the grand treatment. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Platinum Gum

I shall miss this when (presumably tomorrow) it's all over. CAT:HOAX is definitely one of the most entertaining dungeons in the Wikipedia MMORPG. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I just love the fact that the AfD will shortly be set in stone and that anybody Googling for "Platinum Gum" from now on will see it. It is just a pity that your excellent work on its talk page will go down with it. I suggest taking a copy. It is too good to die. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Even as you wrote that, I was taking a copy - the same thought had occurred to me. --JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Daniel, I have initiated a DRV for AbsoluteTelnet and would appreciate your input. I respect your obvious logical and methodical approach and value your opinion (good or bad) in the DRV. Thanks. See AbsoluteTelnet Deletion Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpence (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Daniel at the DRV for Absolute. I've gone further to look for more sources and found four books where AbsoluteTelnet is referenced. You can see these on the DRV page. I *love* google book search! It will show you excerpts from these books where AbsoluteTelnet is found. There's not a *lot* in there besides a few paragraphs or mentions of the product, but I thought it might be significant that these authors found it a program worthy of mentioning in print. Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? I also went and reviewed the other 12 clients from the "Comparison of SSH clients" page to see what kind of source material others were using so I could get a better idea of what to use for the AbsoluteTelnet article. However, most of the clients seem to be missing source references altogether or they reference only their own website and/or mailing lists, etc. Do you have the time to point me to a few examples of well-written software product pages that satisfy notability and have sources that are RS? --Brian Pence (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Mark

Hi Daniel,

You recently reversed a comment I made oN Freddy Mark's page. I assume that you do not want it published that he is a naturist. After years of working in children's television, i thought it was common knowledge that Freddy is an avid and unashamed naturist. He has asked me if I have ever been interested, but alas, I have declined! Best wishes, Mark Markcurry99 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about your personal experiences with celebrities. It cares that what it publishes is referenced to reliable sources so that it can be checked for accuracy. I don't care if Freddy Marks is or is not a naturist. If you can find a reliable source that says that he is then it can be included. If not, then it is unverifiable and probably not notable anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet AFD (round two)

Is it normal for an article to go straight from DRV right back to AFD?--Brian Pence (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is quite common. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM

You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I added to Microsoft Office 2000 two primary Microsoft's sources archived by Internet Archive Wayback Machine in form of direct links to newest available 2000-related archivals of Microsoft website. ㍐ (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's OK for a start but you will need more than that. Look for additional coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added to Microsoft Office 2000 two additional unarchived Microsoft's primary sources analogous to those found in Microsoft Office XP article. ㍐ (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem now. You are copying Office XP but that isn't very well referenced either. It is important to find something that isn't from Microsoft. Maybe you can reuse some of the ones on Microsoft Office? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I found only two more references from Microsoft Office that are related to Office 2000 and added them to Microsoft Office 2000 article. ㍐ (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Virus Protection Software

Daniel, thanks for undoing my contribution of ”Sourcenext” from the list of anti-virus service providers. I do not doubt your decision. For my own knowledge, would you briefly explain your reasons for undoing it? Travis28 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is not meant to be a list of all anti-virus software. It is only meant to be a list of software which has demonstrated its notability. Generally that means it will have a Wikipedia article of its own before it goes on the list. Sourcenext does not have an article, hence its link is red. Relevant policies are wp:red, wp:directory and wp:n. If you think that Sourcenext is notable (as defined in wp:n then you can make an article about it including references to reliable sources which prove this. If that doesn't get deleted then you can re-add to the list of AV software. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, I would ask that you reconsider your stance on deleting information from this and other list-type articles. I think it is contradictory to wp:n and wp:red that you yourself cite. I re-read these policies carefully after you deleted entries from the Comparison of SSH clients article. Specifically, WP:N states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." This tells us directly that notability should only be used to determine whether Sourcenext has it's own article. It does not indicate that it couldn't exist in List of antivirus software. Also, WP:red states that "In topic lists, it is useful to include every topic on the subject you can possibly find or think of that could plausibly sustain an article. When they are turned into links, the list immediately shows where the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage for that subject are, since all of the topics missing articles will show up in red." WP:redlinks *does* allow for removal of redlinks for *deleted* articles, and Sourcenext WAS deleted. However, it is my interpretation that the entry in List of antivirus software should be de-linked rather than be removed entirely. Can you comment? If I am missing some relevent policy point that governs software lists differently, please direct me to the proper policy page. --Brian Pence (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The key phrase with red links is "could plausibly sustain an article". This means that people should not put make red links that are not plausible articles. Dealing with people adding spam to the lists means that we have to be a bit more ruthless than we would like with red links and other list entries. It is up to each list article to decide whether it allows any red links or unlinked entries but most of the more abused ones tend not to.

Purging redlinks from the list of anti-virus software, or any other lists of products, is not normally considered controversial. In fact, there is a particularly good reason to do it for AV products because some fake anti-virus and security packages exist which seek to damage or compromise people's PCs. We would not want to accidentally risk having an entry for such a fake application which might be seen as legitimising it. Of course, I have no reason to suspect that Sourcenext is any such thing. All I am saying is that we need to make sure that the list only contains information which we absolutely know is genuine and that means we need verifiability with third party reliable references. If we get that, then that also covers notability and the item can have an article. So, I hope you see how an item without an article is nearly always an item that should not be on the list.

I think you are misunderstanding the bit about delinking. I think that refers to red links where the text of the link is still necessary to the article. I don't think it refers to list entries. Remember, that Wikipedia is not a directory and the list articles are not intended to include everything. They are intended to group related Wikipedia articles. I appreciate that they are not always understood in that way, because they do look a lot like directories, and that this means that a lot of things get added in good faith which then get removed. There is nothing personal in any of this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with what you're saying, at least where it applies to obvious spam and fake software. I have no first-hand knowledge of Sourcenext either, so I don't know if it falls into either of these categories. I am *not* making a case for Sourcenext here. However, generally speaking, I wonder if there is room on these lists for software that is good software but may not <yet> be notable enough to warrant its own article. In other words, I think you can have verifiability that an entry in a software list is *not* fake/spam even though it may not have enough notability to warrant its own article.--Brian Pence (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire to try do this but I don't think it is possible. The problem is that we can't start making value judgements as to what is good or likely to become notable. There is no way to do this fairly and consistently. If you were to apply the same idea to articles on unsigned pop bands or new political and religious viewpoints then we would quickly be in a complete mess with many things that claim to be good and/or on their way to fame being examined according to very subjective criteria.

The advantage of the current method is that it is as objective as possible. If we come across an article on a controversial and subjective subject (e.g. some strange theory of Astrology) we don't need to determine whether it is good or likely to become well known later. All we have to do is look at how much solid coverage it has right now. That is something that can be fairly evaluated regardless of our own opinions on the subject.

Returning to software, I would also like to point out that notability and goodness do not have to go together as is proved by the fact that we have an article on Microsoft Bob. ;-)

Wikipedia is popular but we should not forget that the rest of the internet exists. There are many things that don't belong in an encyclopaedia, or don't belong yet. There are plenty of other places where they can be listed, documented and discussed. Wikipedia will still be there if they achieve notability later. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Fricke

It was a pleasure tag-teaming with you on Aaron Fricke. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Fricke

Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spotting hoaxes

Hi Daniel,

I am a new Wiki user, but have been browsing for a long time. I notice you spend a lot of time sniffing out 'hoaxes'. Can I ask you how you check if things are genuine? What makes some internet resources more reliable than others? What about written resources such as newspapers and magazines that feature an article that isn't found anywhere on the internet?

The reason I ask this is because I recently read an interview with a British television presenter who was talking about a new project he is working on. I thought this would be a perfect opportunity for me to add my first Wiki edit. Howvere, when I came to look at the article on here, i noticed that you had removed the reference that I was going to put on as 'vandalism'. I searched online to see if I could find a mention of the TV show and I couldn't, but it features in a Ntional Magazine. Surely more reliable than lots of the questionable internet resources?! Your comments would be appreciated.

Best wishes, and looking forward to editing! Bowlerhatstand (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The verifiability says that everything here must be verifiable. This means that the most important thing is for you to have access to reliable references which demonstrate that what you write about is correct and to include the references so that other people can check it. That will avoid anything you write being mistaken for a hoax. It is also important to check the notability policy to make sure that what you are adding is the correct sort of thing to go into an encyclopaedia. I have put the standard welcome page on your talk page. That contains links to all the main things you need to get started. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CompleteFTP inclusion in lists.

You should read Wikipedia criteria here a little more carefully. Wikipedia quite clearly states that "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. ". CompleteFTP is verifiably a member of each listed group, and it is not unreasonable to expect that in the not so distant future it will satisfy the criteria for an article. I think you are being extremely unreasonable. Fair enough, delete the article, but it is quite reasonable for it to included in the lists. Bblackshaw (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Monkeys

The dictionary definition is quite clear. The term monkey has two meanings. One is a general meaning where the term monkey refers to any primate except for humans, lemurs and tarsiers. The other is a more specific meaning, which in addition to excluding humans, lemurs and tarsiers, also excludes apes. The newsreaders are not being ignorant when they refer to chimps as monkeys. They are simply using a more generic meaning of the term than you are used to. Why can't the article acknowledge the fact that the term has two very common meanings instead of dogmatically insisting that one meaning is correct and the other meaning is wrong? Slackergeneration (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you seem to have a problem understanding that dictionary entry. The only place in which that definition included apes was in its original usage in the 16th century, this was not even in English, but in Low German. This has no bearing on how it is used in English today and is only included in the dictionary to document the linguistic root of the word. There are 4 current usages listed. One excludes apes and the other three do not refer to primates at all and are not relevant.

Leaving that aside, lets see if there is any support for a second, wider, meaning by looking in a wider range of dictionaries: (all entries linked from [1]):

• Oxford Compact: Doesn't say.
• Encarta: Excludes apes.
• MW: Excludes apes.
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's: Doesn't say.
• Wiktionary: Excludes apes.
• Webster's New World: Has inclusion of some apes listed as a "loose" usage. Main definition excludes apes.
• Wordsmyth: Vague. Excludes some apes but seems to include others. (not sure how reliable a dictionary this is)
• American Heritage Dictionary: Excludes some apes explicitly and doesn't say about the rest
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Excludes some apes and notes that it "usually" excludes others.

From this is it clear that the more precise dictionaries (the ones that have etymology and many uses listed) exclude apes and that the children's dictionaries, concise dictionaries and informal on-line dictionaries tend not to make a distinction.

What I did find is [2], which is the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911. This shows that use of "monkey" to include some and possibly all apes was the main use at that time and that the more modern use was secondary. Since then the wider definition has fallen by the wayside but survives as a "loose" or colloquial use which some dictionaries include and others do not.

So where does that leave us? Well, it does support your claim that a second usage exists but it also shows that is is drastically secondary to the current primary usage which excludes apes. I have changed the article to say "considered incorrect" rather than just "incorrect" but I don't think we can go any further than that.

--DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The WM defenition is as follows: a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers ; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes. The first half of that definition which reads a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers does not exclude apes; the only primate mammals it excludes are humans, lemurs, and tarsiers. It is only in the second half of the definition where it explains what the term especially refers to that apes are excluded. A good analogy would be to define the term American as a person from the Americas, especially a citizen of the United States as contrasted with other countries in the Americas. Does that mean it is incorrect to refer to someone from South America as American? No. It simply means you are invoking the broader definition of the term. Slackergeneration (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at. There is a lack of clarity in the MW definition which I previously missed. By using "especially" they don't say under what circumstances apes might not be excluded but they do leave the door open to the possibility without stating it clearly. They really should have worded it better. [3] has a much clearer way of setting it out. I don't think that alters the result of the survey above in which almost all the dictionaries that offer a precise definition exclude apes in their primary usage but I will add that the term is still in use. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Underground London

Note: As this discussion is wider than just discussing my contributions and many people are involved I have moved it too Talk:Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please go there to continue the discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

steve kim FYI

FYI on Steve Kim; the prod tag was removed, and I don't think I can put it back, so I submitted an AFD with your reasons. tedder (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're right about not being able to put the prod back. AfD is the way to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't it be put back if it was a bad-faith removal? In any case, somehow we should figure out how to have two !votes in the AfD- one for each of us. I may give reasons so you can keep your reasons and !vote yourself, or you can feel free to edit my nom if you wish. tedder (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith on deproddings. It may be that the author feels that fixing the confusion between North and South Korea was enough,although clearly it isn't. There is no harm in having AfD on it. If nothing else, it proves to the World that everything gets a fair hearing on Wikipedia rather than being deleted on one person's say-so. I wouldn't worry about the vote thing. Unless a nominator explicitly says that they are neutral it is reasonable for anybody to assume that they support deletion, besides it isn't a vote in a strict counting sense. If the deletion argument makes sense and no valid rebuttal is given then it will be deleted even if we are in the minority. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

George Zinkhan

Sorry, when I removed the PROD I mistakenly said that it was a Speedy. Sorry about that. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I did put speedy on it but then I realised that this was wrong and took it off again. Are you going to make it into a redirect? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What Happen?

Did you remove my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent camp (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one? As far as I can see both of your current articles are still there but I have tagged National Association Of Farmers to be deleted because it doesn't make much sense, has no references and it is not clear how big or important the organisation is. I can't delete anything myself, as I am not an administrator, so it will only be deleted if an administrator agrees that it should be. Special Real State Agent was deleted by somebody else. I never even saw that one. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How can i be a Admin?

Daniel, How could i be a admin? Daniel, Please talk to me, Can you tell me, How to be a admin?--Brent camp (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Being an admin requires you to be an experienced and long standing Wikipedia editor with a proven track record of good decision making in things like deletion discussions. It is not something you should be thinking about for quite a while yet. Try to get the hang of being an ordinary editor first. Try working on existing articles to learn how they work. I see that you have been clearing out your talk page. You can do this if you like but it means that you lost the welcome message which tells you how to do things on Wikipedia. I am going to put that back. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Daniel. Please i am in the red zone. i have 45 black marks on my account. What Zone i am in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent camp (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have not got the slightest idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia does not have "zones". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please suspend my account Daniel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent camp (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I can't. Why not just stop using it? If you really want it blocked you can ask an admin. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I am contacting you because you commented on this issue a while ago.

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good topic for discussion. For example, calling the most doctrinaire Soviet Communists by the term "conservatives" when they might also be called "far-left" was a doubtful characterization during the Cold War, when American "conservatives" were so strongly anti-communist. The proposal you mention has a very long discussion, so I am unsure when I can contribute there. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my sucky markup on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christiane_Dahrendorf. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump on Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

Thank you for commenting in a section in Village Pump on Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting, but I am concerned that this should be discussed more prominently elsewhere. Do you know how to accomplish this? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but I am sure somebody at the pump does. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IUP Dating Game

I would like to know why you wont let me have this page, please I created the page myself and would like to keep it up. My right to put my piece of history that was with this program I did with passion. Please just keep my page up. It was a good time in my life and I like to keep it. Thank You. Dave Frye, username: Ddf1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.236.143 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to me to let you have it. The deletion discussion is ongoing and I will not be the one who decides the outcome, but it is hardly in doubt as the article completely fails to fulfil Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which include notability, neutrality and verifiability. Please try to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not just some free web host where you can upload anything you like. I suggest you take what you have written and publish it somewhere more appropriate. Your right is to publish your work, just not here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and delete the page. I have kept the text of the page for my own personal records and a page on my own personal website soon to be up. thank you. User: Ddf1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.15.78 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

From Allena Hansen

I'm not entirely certain what would constitute "noteworthy," here but at least one other Wikipedia poster has used me as her claim to fame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_J._Lee (Which is why I tried to cross-link to her article. Woman is a true genius.)

In addition to the initial exploitive "news" references I included in my sample entry, I've an extensive and documented online history on Salon and OpenSalon, (published as "ahansen", HBB, FaceBakersfield and many others. My print published stories and commentaries have appeared in everything from LA Times to Playboy magazine, and my book-in-progress (The Ursadent,) about the attack and its aftermath as a national metaphor, has been featured in readings from Santa Monica to San Francisco.

I've a volunteer public speaking schedule that would exhaust a three-year-old, as well as numerous featured appearances in the media going back to the nineteen-sixties. (Most recently-last week- on Bob Cesca's weekly radio program. I spoke for a half hour on the social impact of twenty-three layers of middlemen between one's wallet and one's physicians.) That my posts about the health insurance industry are being removed from national forums over the protest of the website administrators is ample evidence that I've hit an insurance industry nerve. THAT, I think, is noteworthy in and of itself!

The bear attack is relevant only in that its notoriety has allowed me more of an international forum than say, a car wreck would have. My actual body of (related) work is as a political activist and social critic.

Thanks for any guidance you can offer!

allenahansenAllenahansen (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The best advice I can offer is not to try to write about yourself on Wikipedia. It always causes problems because it is so hard to be objective about yourself. The welcome message on your talk page has links to the polices and guidelines. If you read those you will get a better idea of what the rules are and also why they are necessary. After that, you might want to contribute to other articles but it is best to avoid subjects where you find it hard to be neutral. It is quite likely that your article will be deleted but you can have your say on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allena Hansen. If you can supply some links which show that reliable sources have written about your healthcare campaigning in detail then that will be considered and might make a difference. If the article is deleted this is not the end of the world. If your profile continues to rise then you may well meet the notability requirements at some point in the future. When that happens, somebody else will probably write a new article about you. If they do, I recommend not to edit it yourself. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anuna Sources

Hi Daniel You put a note regarding sources and the need for further citation on the top of our page. As all the secondary sources on our group actually use our site as the primary source [usually quoting it either inexpertly or inaccurately] why would we use them as references? While I appreciate that you are following protocols, this entry doesn't say "Anuna are the best on the world" or "are unique and haunting etc."- it simply states facts. If you want this entry re-written based on the out-of-date, skewed or biased stuff that I have seen then this entry should be deleted, as no entry is better than an inaccurate one - I am sure you would agree : ) Best Michael McGlynn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.252.66 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes OK for verification but they are no good for proving notability. We need proof of significant coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources. If that can not be found then the article is very likely to be deleted. Also, you should not be writing about your own group anyway. This always causes trouble, even when it is done in good faith. Please see wp:auto and wp:coi. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - so let me get this logic straight. I write a programme note or a press release. This is taken up by a "notable" third party site who post it verbatim online et voila - validation. I hope not - please feel free to request deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.252.66 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not just republish press releases. They do proper reviews/features based on their own experience/research. A republished press release is just a press release. Don't worry. The policy does make sense. If you read wp:n, wp:v and wp:rs it will explain everything. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I don't see much chance of the article being deleted for notability unless the claims made in the article are substantially untrue or inflated. The band, as described, certainly seem to meet the notability requirement. Verifiability is the problem. Deletion is a red herring. The article needs to be fixed. Why would you want it deleted? Do you shun all coverage that you can't write or vet yourselves? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if something about our article was derogatory, as long as it was accurately derogatory. While I appreciate that Wikipedia is an important resource, I don't use anything from it without triple checking it anyway, and if people do as I do, they will end up back at the Anuna website. I am not, and never have been one to build up the group into something it isn't, and I am very surprised at someone supposedly nuetral passing a remark like your last sentence above. I read your last line as an implication that I am some kind of paranoid control-freak. You might watch that as I am sure that was not your intention. I won't be posting to this page again, but will watch with interest at some stage in the future what your diligence results in on the Anuna entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.252.66 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason I made the comment about vetting was that you seemed to want to rely on primary sources and then suggested that the article might be better off deleted if that was not possible. To be honest, that did come across as a bit controlling but I didn't mean it as a big insult. It was just intended to point out that no band with a public profile can control has control over everything that is written about them. I guess it was a bit harsh, so sorry about that. I am glad to see that you are going to let the article develop. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That was fast, I hadn't managed to exit the page before your typed that. I have to say that for all its flaws, Wikipedia is a great place to meet people who give a damn about accuracy. My business thrives on inaccuracy... wish we were a band and not a choir... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.252.66 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint David's School

Hey Daniel, can you start up a page for Saint David's School. I know you're very good at this. Heres the website: www.saintdavids.org Thanks man, means alot Stdavids (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)StDavids

Based on the information in the article that got deleted, I don't think the school meets the inclusion criteria. Most small primary/elementary/junior schools don't. The primary school I attended doesn't have an article. If St Davids school has been received significant media or other coverage then that would be different. The difficulty when researching such an article is that many schools have the same name so it isn't easy to find out whether the school is notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salt therapy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Salt therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Possible neologisms, no reliable sources, fails to meet notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. LexCorp (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of External Links on Cream cheese

Hello Daniel,

Maybe you can help me?

I added the external link for the company I work for, Franklin Foods, one of the last privately owned cream cheese manufacturers in the United States. Since you deleted all of the external links you also deleted Franklin Foods.

Perhaps you can help me since I'm new to Wikipedia. I was trying to inform the reader of the article that there are other companies or brands that manufacturer cream cheese other than the category leader Philadelphia. Also, Franklin Foods is mentioned in the Schmear Campaign article in Wired.

Any help would be great.

Thanks. (Ccc1212 (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

If you read WP:EXTLINKS it explains what external links are for and what sorts should be added.

I noticed your link and decided is wasn't really appropriate. We don't want links to lots of manufacturers of products as this could be used for advertising, or simply turn into an uncontrollable list. We want a small number of links that provide further reading about cream cheese more generally. Then I looked at the other links and they were no good either. One would have been relevant if it was working but it wasn't. The others were recipes and the like. Rather than just remove yours I thought it best to remove them all. That way, we can start clean.

The article already explains that there are other brands of cream cheese. One of the pictures is Philadelphia and one isn't. I would advise against writing about the company you work for. It isn't completely forbidden but it is strongly recommended not to write about subjects where you might find it hard to be neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights and feedback. Perhaps a few things to consider. The Yoplait link further up the page is irrelevant since they don't manufacture cream cheese. There are only handful (approx. 5) manufacturers of cream cheese in the U.S...so your concern of this becoming advertising for manufacturers would be mitigated. I think our company inclusion is valid since we are basically the only company in the space that is trying to re-invigorate the category with a naturally healthy alternative to the category leader. Leaving the article without another valid manufacturer (such as Franklin Foods) listed, referenced or linked by default makes this article an advertisement for Philadelphia...especially since the article mentions the brand in the very first sentence. Thank you. (Ccc1212 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Don't forget that we are not only talking about the US, the article is meant to cover the subject globally. In the UK there are a few brands of cream cheese, although Philadelphia dominates, and all the main supermarket chains have their own brands (although, I am not sure how many actual manufacturers there are). Philadelphia is a special case, like Hoover with Vacuum cleaners, where one brand is perceived as not only defining but actually synonymous with the product and has to be extensively integrated into the article however it should not advertise them.

Anyway, here is what I recommend. Avoid editing the article, as you could be seen as having a conflict of interests but explain your concerns on its talk page and we will see where it goes from there. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Perhaps any easy way around this is to list and link all of the U.S. manufacturers of cream cheese in addition to Franklin Foods. Such as Schreiber, Raskas, BC-USA, etc. Could be an easy fix. Again, out of all of these companies Franklin Foods is the only one that is fully committed to re-inventing the category and with the launch of our recently patented yogurt & cream cheese it is starting to gain traction across channels. Most notably with schools. Thanks. (Ccc1212 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Lets not link companies that don't have their own Wikipedia articles, unless they have substantial additional information about the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is not a business directory so we don't need to link lots of manufacturers. Also, remember that there is no logic/fairness in linking all the US manufacturers if we don't link all the other ones in the world. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Slayer Boxing

this is about slayers boxing so just cus its not on google i cant put it on wikipdiA? But youtube knows about slayer boxing —Preceding unsigned comment added by BD the quick Dictionary (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is not a Reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We can only include stuff that is already covered by reliable sources. The links in the welcome message on your talk page will explain all this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ohh can yu give me some ideas of how to make it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BD the quick Dictionary (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't. If "slayer boxing" has been written about in a newspaper, or a book or covered on a major TV network then you should use those sources instead as they are considered reliable. Nothing will ever make YouTube a reliable source because anybody can upload things to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ouhh lol well its gonna be on newpapers and the NEw someday then thats when ill hit chu up for help about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BD the quick Dictionary (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Porter

Why do you keep deleting my edits after I provided references?

Orientcharlie (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A webforum is not a reliable reference. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge Robert Polis

This is a notable person from the California Courts Only4thetruth (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. As you can see from my vote on the AfD, I am neutral on that. I just noticed the spelling mistake and am trying to clean that up and get both articles dealt with in one go. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bendigo Weekly

There seems to be some doubts as to the veracity of the Bendigo Weekly's claims. If this is true, I can provide hard evidence that the Bendigo Weekly does exist, is in fact a newspaper, and has won awards. I can provide pictures of the building, PDF files of every Bendigo Weekly newspaper for the last 5 years, pictures of the awards sitting on a shelf, as well as pictures of Anthony Radford accepting awards on the presentation nights. If this is what is required please let me know and I will supply whatever you require. Regards Mark Markjenni (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not as bad as that. We have proof that the paper exists and that it has won at least one award. We just need to make sure it is notable enough for inclusion and that the various claims are all verifiable. Not all local newspapers are notable enough for inclusion. You need to find independent sources that prove this and add them as references to the article. You should also make your case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bendigo Weekly. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

bincimap

Hi Daniel. Why have you deleted bincimap from the mail server comparision table?

Markhobley (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It didn't have an article. We only compare items that are notable enough to have their own articles. Wikipedia is not a software directory and most software is not notable enough to have an article so please don't take it personally. If you think it might be notable enough then read WP:N to check that it really does fulfil the requirements and then write a short article for it. A stub would be sufficient but be sure to include a statement saying why it is notable and at least one independent, reliable reference that demonstrates this. If that article survives for a day or two than it will be OK put it back in the comparison table. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There is no reason why bincimap does not have an article. It has its own website, and is commonly used software. I believe that it did have an article in the past. There are certainly articles elsewhere on the internet, and I have certainly written articles about it.

Also it is still mail server software, and how can a comparison table be of use, if it does not consider all packages?

I notice that you have also deleted bincimap from the list of mail servers article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhobley (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For the same reason. Anyway, I am not seeing any sign that there was ever a bincimap article on Wikipedia, so it is not like it was created and got deleted. If you want to try making it then give it a go, just make sure that you understand the notability rules so that you can make a valid claim of notability to avoid it getting deleted. Also, if you found my previous reply to you hard to follow, try following the various links it contains. They have more details. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Girlicious Sophmore Album

Any objection to me upgrading this to AFD? If it gets deleted by PROD, it can be recreated, and I'm fairly certain that it will be recreated nearly instantaneously.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have reason to suspect that this might be a problem then go for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bernice Knox Wiley Middle School

Hey man... I was just wondering what was wrong with my Bernice Knox Wiley Middle School page... This is my first time creating a wiki page and I just want to know what was wrong/ what I have to do to get it up and running (again).

That is all.

Stevegerken (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Stevegerken

You have not said what makes the school notable. Wikipedia policy is to have articles on all high schools (secondary schools) but not all middle schools or elementary schools. Middle schools and elementary schools can only be included if there is some special reason why they are notable. This could be for historic reasons or for some controversy or for some other reason. If you think that applies to the school then add details of this to the article. If not then the article will be deleted. Don't take it personally if this happens. You can still contribute to other articles. There is information on your talk page which will help point you in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Constantin Brancusi University;

I have nominated Constantin Brancusi University; (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Tera Online

Hello DanielRigal, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Tera Online - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to software. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article isn't very clear and I assumed it was web content (which is eligible) based on its name with "online" in it. I will put PROD on it instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazism in Egypt

hi daniel - i thought your comments on my new article were correct. shall i change the title to "Nazism in the Middle East: the New Research". see my comments on the Nazism in Egypt page for my thoughts on this. thanks. Cimicifugia (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)cimifugia

Why not leave off "The new research", then we can cover all views on it? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

London Overground

I think that would be better to have the NR logo in it, as to me it looks like LO is not part of the NR network, thanks. Likelife (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New page proof read

If you can proof read the page I just added then I'd appreciate it. Billy Newport

I will try to have a proper look at it later but I recommend to avoid too much internal IBM stuff that isn't visible to the outside world. Try to keep it short and stick to things that have been covered by independent sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Premiered

I looked into it, and the accented version is indeed a correct spelling variation, but the unaccented version is also correct. I've personally never seen the word used with an accent in my life until I Googled it and saw it in pages regarding French cosmetics. Furthermore, Opera recognized it as a spelling error. When I asked the IRC, they agreed with me that premiered should be used, and informed me that the accented version isn't English standard. Your spellchecker must be like anti-English or something!  AcroX  01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking at it. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Jackson (Singer/Songwriter)

Im the user for gregjacksoninc, contributor for Gregory Jackson (singer/songwriter), producer and more. Each time I submit this additional info:

Greg started performing at the age of four when his uncle and aunts would take him to several school activities with them just so he could perform for their friends. At age fourteen, he joined a Cincinnati based band by the name of "The Soulseekers" (1969) who later changed their name to "400 Years of What" (1972).

After performing locally for years, he later hooked up with members of Parliament Funkadelic (1975) now known as the Original P. then move to Atlanta GA. While writing and rehearsing approximately a year for Original P., he received a called from Bootsy and his brother Catfish Collins (1976) asking him to join a band that they and George Clinton was producing by the name of Roger and the Human Body now known as Zapp since 1980.

Working with the Troutman brothers gave him and opportunity to not only tour the world, but a chance to share his musical ability by writing, producing, co-producing and performing with such artist as Roger Troutman, Shirley Murdock, Bobby Glover, New Horizon, the Human Body, Dick Smith, Sugarfoot of the Ohio Players, Bigg Robb and Dayton. Greg is currently on tour with Zapp and working with Troutman brothers (Lester, Terry and Rufus) who he has become their long time friend.

It is deleted. You was the last person to do so. This is the story given to me by the one and only GREGORY JACKSON (himself). You may research it, help me re-word and/or get back with me to tell me what it is that I'm doing WRONG. Gregory has read several things that others contribute surrounding the people he was or is currently involved with and questioned their stories or the sources who provided them. He want his page and credits to be noted as well. ~~Gregoryjacksoninc~~

Please read WP:COI and WP:V as a matter of urgency. Then you will understand that we are writing an encyclopaedia here and that people do not get to decide what goes in their own entries. Of course, they have a right to have inaccuracies corrected so that they are not misrepresented but that does not extend to a right to add your own unreferenced, promotional stuff just because you feel that your client is not getting the level of coverage he feels he deserves. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete!!

These characters play a MAJOR role in the episodes they appear in. Also, they appear in the old theme song, which is one of the most important parts of the series.

Emmanuel A. Asiegbu (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Warmpuppy2 (talk) 7:00 pm, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about List of one-time characters in Johnny Test, right? That is currently undergoing the Articles for Deletion process and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in Johnny Test. It won't be my decision whether to delete it or not. Everybody will have their say and then an administrator will decide whether there is a consensus to delete. You can have your say on the discussion too. One well respected editor has already voted to keep the article, so it is not a done deal.

If the article does get deleted it will be because the characters are too minor to be in Wikipedia, not because the list itself is bad. You will be able to take the list and publish it somewhere else. It has been suggested that http://johnnytest.wikia.com/wiki/Johnny_Test_Wiki might be a good place. This is a Wiki all about Johnny Test so no characters would be too minor to include there. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good news: I just got an account on Wikia and I posted the page there! Now I won't have to worry about losing the article! Emmanuel A. Asiegbu (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Warmpuppy2 (talk) 7:00 pm, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Notablity

Hi. Question -- as to the Shells, there was just a review as to notability, with the admin's holding being "keep". Given that, I thought the second template would be sufficient. Pls let me know if I am wrong. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Meat on the bone

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat on the Bone (2nd nomination) you said that you thought that there might be an article in the topic if it was written properly. This is just to let you know that I have written something and it is at Meat on the bone. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Job....more than happy to support. Again, Nice Job.ShoesssS ^Talk 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion contested : Little Chris

There are articles relating to the white-clawed crayfish and to the signal crayfish already in Wikipedia.

[4] White Clawed Crayfish

[5] Signal Crayfish

and the problem posed by the invasive Signal Crayfish in the United Kingdom is described.

Any group formal or informal that takes it upon itself to contest the challenge that the disease-carrying signal crayfish raises for the indiginous white-clawed species is notable, especially so if its origins lie outwith the conventional network of natural history societies and heritage quangos as it demonstrates the power of the streamed wildlife image on the internet as a means of recruiting support for conservation causes from the general population. The lack of other organisations dedicated to the same cause for the entry to be grouped with is further demonstration of such notability.

As your complaint stands I would imagine that Poland's Solidarity movement might have had problems getting into Wikipedia had Wikipedia been around for its early days.

TRD 81.78.79.10 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.92.107 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shells AfD

Since you have done some editing to this article and Written Roads, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification: Epeefleche's alternate accounts weren't technically sockpuppets, as he didn't use them specifically to fraudulently inflate votes/skew discussions.... the fact that multiple accounts edited the "best breakout NYC artist" article did momentarily make it appear more notable than it was, but I don't think he did that on purpose in order to deceive.

That being said, his pattern of participation in AfDs is still disruptive (particularly, flooding the page unnecessary quotes of entire articles, and long rants that are irrelevant—rambling about, for example, how long Seventeen has been in publication or who the publisher of whatever magazine is, when the matter at issue is not the age of the magazine but the significance of the coverage in that article), but disruptive in a way that isn't addressed by any specific rules (AFAIK). So I guess there's no choice but to put up with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am prepared to consider that his misleading behaviour was accidental but I don't like the way that he pretends he did nothing wrong at all. That said, I wasn't going to make an issue of his past behaviour until he started going on about the past AfD. His digressions into irrelevance may well be in good faith, some people are just verbose. I know I can be sometimes. I don't want do do him down to the point where his claims are considered worthless, just to encourage people to look carefully and judge for themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of SSH clients

I have noticed this edit this subsequent edit, and this last edit, removing redlinked or extlinked items from the Comparison of SSH clients comparison table.

I would like to ask you to reconsider deleting redlinks and extlinks from comparison table, for the following reasons:

• the row information is useful in making a choice based on the comparison table, even if the item doesn't have a page
• there was valuable work done to reference the comparison table entry contents
• redlinks indicate that there is work to be done. Simply deleting the item does not help anyone:
  • visitors will remain ignorant of the missing item
  • new editors who want to recreate the entry will not know that it has been deleted already,
    • so they will waste time re-creating it,
    • while possibly having it deleted again,
    • and searching for deleted entries is not exactly easy (in the example above, no edit summary contains the word "XShell", if an editor wanted to add an entry for that item)
    • the status of "consecrated" items is not improved by deleting redlinks or extlinks; it would still be plainly clear that an item has a Wikipedia page vs. and external link or a redlink.
  • editors who have a reference for the status of one criterion of an item in the comparison table are less likely to create an entry in all the tables in a page just to add that criterion reference, compared to the situation when the rows were left alone and only one cell needed to be added the reference.

All that's done by tidying up is giving a false sense of accuracy, where in fact none exists. -- Dandv (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there has to be a fundamental difference between encyclopaedia and a product comparison site. We should only list and compare notable items. For the full range of products people should go elsewhere. I would also point out that people recrereating a deleted article will always see a warning telling them of this so you don't need to worry about that. I do take your point that we should keep redlinks that are notable topics which just don't have an article yet. The vast majority of redlinks do not fall into that category. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The info you deleted on the table is verifiable, and though Wikipedia is not a software directory, software which is mentioned on Softpedia, awarded by a reputable medium, commented or reviewed by media or celebrities should have independent articles. The items you deleted should have independent articles. By the way, I found out that IconPackager is now a redirect to Object Desktop, but it should be an independent article since it has relationship with Icon Customiser, a discontinued software release by Tysoft, a UK software company. --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend to check that having an entry in Softpedia is enough to demonstrate notability, as well as verifiability, before making a lot of articles. Do we really want an entry for every item that Softpedia has an article on? Wikipedia is not a directory. Softpedia is a directory. If we copy everything they have then that would make us a directory too, and a rather pointless one.

As I say, some of these things you added back were already deleted more than once as articles. There is little or no chance of them ever having articles. Rather than argue the general principle, which I think is a lost cause, I suggest you look for specific items that are missing from the list and comparison articles that clearly do meet the WP:N criteria and make stubs for those. It is quality not quantity we should strive for. A few good additions will help Wikipedia a lot more than a larger number of poor ones. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More

Hi. I think the following will be of interest to you as well: The Bollywood Brass Band, Bombay Talkie (band), DCS (band), Dhol Academy, Dhol Foundation, Mentor Kolektiv, Tigerstyle, Sukshinder Shinda, Harbans Jandu, Surinder Shinda, Sardool Sikander, and Kuldeep Manak.

Also, I note that WP:WAX says: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".

Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks okay to me.

I'm not seeing a problem with my sig there (though I'm quite capable of screwing such things up). Do you still see the problem? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was missing initially but got added in this diff [6]. I am not sure what to make of it but your signature above is fine so it appears to be a one-off. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, must have hit 5~ Hobit (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Austin

I have reverted all the changes. You don't have to do them all manually, but revert back to a previous version. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know, But I have some edits tidying up the article too and I don't want to lose those. I'm afraid I did make a bit of a mess of it but I think we are OK now. I had some pretty major edits so when I got the edit clash warning I thought it would be easiest for me to just blast my major edits in and then redo anybody else's minor edits as required. I then realised that you had made quite major edits too, which meant I was not being as clever as I thought I was. Sorry about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Godwin

Please stop removing my link from the West Park page. Wikipedia is a public service that anyone is free to edit. You do not hold dominion over content you did not create. My website contains scores of images of west park, so I am linking my site from the west park page. I don't care about google rank or anything in the slightest, I am simply linking my website because people searching for westpark will be able to find a greater amount of pictures. It's an external link, and if they weren't allowed, Wikipedia wouldn't allow them as an option.

Since adding my link to the page, I have had several people contact me for advice regarding entry into west park and how to say safe whilst travelling arond the buildings. I even took some university students on a guided tour for their photography projects after they got my number following the wikipedia link.

Please stop removing the link it has a just reason for being there and I would kindly appreciate it if you would accept that not everyone is adding links to wikipedia in order to profit.

Calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leave1 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but linking your blog is still not allowed. I did suggest that you upload a couple of pictures to the Commons instead. I still think that is a better idea. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, linking my blog is allowed because it is an external reference that contains extra pictures as well as extra information about West Park. My website isn't different from any other external link just because YOU have a personal issue with it. I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong, and to be honest, I'm rather perplexed as to why you even care so much. It's just a link. It doesn't benefit me in any way. The extra traffic actually COSTS me. I'm just posting the link because it contains relevant information about a site that is going to be demolished any day now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leave1 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder. My comment was not directed at you, and you're right sarcasm is probably not the way to go, but it's difficult not to get irritated with inanities such as was presented by the user in question. But thanks again for the reminder. Nunamiut (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Guildford

Hi please don't remove it again it's quite annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.41.199 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising your club. Unless you have a reliable, independent reference for it, it will continue to be removed. Continuing to re add it will be treated as disruptive behaviour. Please stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case

Hello! I have taken a mediation cabal case that has listed you as a party to a content dispute. Before we can proceed to a process of discussion and mediation, I need each party's confirmation that they are willing to proceed with the process to find a solution to end this problem.

Please indicate this approval, if given, on both my talk page and the case page that is linked above.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Re- comment on my talk page

Ah, I see. That makes sense --Reubzz (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Activity book

The article Activity book has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be simply a dictionary definition.WP:WINAD

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is an encyclopaedic subject in this. The article is more than a dicdef and I hope it can be expanded further. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian Newspaper information vs. advertisement

Thank you for your help and attention. We edited text to make sure it does not look as an advertisement. --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely there is something else? Are the circulation figures published anywhere? Has any of the English language newspapers in the region mentioned it at all? If the circulation really is 70,000 then surely somebody has noticed this and written something about it? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments were removed by --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)as agreed with the owner of the page.

I don't really understand what you want to keep private but I suggest you remove anything from the above comment now if you don't want anybody to see it.

I am not really sure what to suggest about the article though. If there is nothing much to prove notability or verify the article content then it may get deleted. Normally a newspaper with 70,000 readers would not have a problem having an article but this one may be unusual because of the difficulty in verification. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for help. I am not sure where did the number 70,000 come from. I assume the community population listed as a taget was misinterpeted as a circulation. Article never claimed 70,000 circulation. Yhis number should be removed to avoid firther confusion. --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. In that case I am afraid that it probably isn't going to be notable. There are still a few days to go before it gets deleted so I will try to have another look and see if there is anything that can save it but it is a long shot.

Please don't get put off if it is deleted. You will still be very welcome to contribute to other articles on Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really apreciate your help and offer to take a second look. As you may feel I got someone from the community to help with clearification and response. Dletion tag was removed and discussion has been opened on the article discussion page. I was not clear what does "notable" mean. Now I see - it means - not important to know about. This is the point we had to address there. I hope our explanation could be accepted because 1. this paper is a unique in it's way and notable for the relatively large ethnic community, this is not just a business but a part of this cultiral life and the history of this community. Many references (I was not able to find) and external links were added. 2. Wikipedia has many articles on comparable publication of not more or may be even less notability. I assume circulation is not the only criteria of notability, besides I guess they have something about 15,000 or 20,00 copies printed anyway, that is appropriate for the community od 70K+. But, once again, I really appreciate your time and advice. And please forgive my typos. Still cannot figure out how to run the spell check here :-) --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pillar

My error, for some reason I thought it was expired. Having said that, it was blanked by the only contributor, which is grounds for a speedy, but for some reason (because it lost the speedy tag?) it was reverted. I'm inclined to let my inadvertent speedy stand since there is no evidence it is even true, but I'll reinstate the article and prod if you think that's desirable 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Unless the author objects I think it is fine as it is. I just thought I should mention it in case it indicated a wider problem with some timing mechanism or something that might lead a other PRODs being expired early. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dartford Living

We wanted a reference point for people searching for Dartford Living on the web.

I have responded to your comments below. your comments are in brackets []..

[Seemingly non-notable free magazine] - this is offensive. non-notable? Dartford Living has good links with local organisations and residents and has been involved in local politics since inception.

[with a small local circulation] - you call 6,000 printed copies small? have you considered our online presence at our website and on facebook? (700 members within 5 months). We have also set up on twitter and within one month have 50 followers. We also have people downloading each issue form our website from all over the globe, and downloads are in excess of 400 downloads...besides...is there a criteria that asks a minimum number of copies each month before it can be conidered for entry on to wikipedia?

[and no references for verifiability.] - we can provide references if necessary.

[Has interviewed some notable people but so have many other non-notable publications (e.g. student magazines) which we don't have articles on.] - maybe because these publications don;t want to be on wikipedia, or not thought about setting an entry on wikipedia?

[Previously speedily deleted twice.] - true, because the entry sounded like an advert and because we didn't understand the copyright issues with photos (since cleared up). we have revamped it to make it more factual instead. we are new to wiki and are just getting to grips with it

There must be some guidelines we can refer to in this dispute - another view fron another editor as your comments are not just offensive but do not stand up to any scrutiny....I hope that we can resolve this amicably without removal of the page. if it needs changing or editing please advise us and we will do so. u need references? what kind of references? anything else we need to add or omit?

regards

abdelhk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not notable as in not fulfilling the notability criteria. Its not offensive. Please have your say on the AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Printing Money addition to Federal Reserve System

The IP has added the materiel again, against WP:CONSENSUS, using the same rationale that it is "well sourced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4wajzkd02 (talk • contribs)

We have done our best to explain why his behaviour is inappropriate to Wikipedia. He has parroted enough of our policies back at us to show that he knows they exist even though he has no intention of actually respecting them. I think this is now a vandalism issue now. I am reporting it as such. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

An admin at AIV closed your report as stale. I've posted on his page, asking him to review this. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am happy to let it slide. We can approach it either as vandalism or as a content dispute. The end result will probably be the same, it just takes longer to do it the other way. Personally, I still think he did step over the line between heated content dispute and true vandalism but I can see why others may want to err on the side of caution. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's still going, I've posted a notice here [7]. Ravensfire (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tondino's paradox

Thank you. I am really not great at this!Joseane (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(Note: Comment moved here from my User page --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Re:Your comment on the Fed talk page with respect to paper money

Your comment follows

I can't see anything constructive to the article being discussed here. To be honest, it all sounds a bit crazy. If there has been serious discussion of this claim by notable historians or economists them maybe it merits inclusion but there is no evidence of this as yet. If all we have is an eccentric claim backed up by an editor's personal interpretation of the legal precedents then that fails WP:SYN. Common sense says that this is fringe (at best). The notion that any independent nation state would, either by accident or intention, put itself in a situation where it was prohibited to issue or operate a currency seems absurd. The only example of anything like this actually happening that I can think of is Democratic Kampuchea, where money was actually abolished and outlawed

You obviously did not read the minutes of the vote during the Constitutional Convention to remove the power to make paper money legal tender from the Federal government which I had included for discussion. That vote happened because that power was abused to the extent it is currently being abused in Zimbabwe, after WW1 in Germany and other examples. See link for extent of that abuse [8] "In our final revision, Zimbabwe's inflation rate had hit 79,600,000,000% per month putting Zimbabwe in second place. We wondered whether in our second edition Zimbabwe would overtake the all time hyperinflater, Hungary (1945-1946) at 41,900,000,000,000,000% per month, but it was not to be. As it turned out, we went to press just as the hyperinflation peaked and Zimbabwe's currency ceased to exist as a medium of exchange." [9] The kids in that picture are playing with bundles of money.

The abuse happened because the states could not pay their bills during the Revolutionary War and printed so much currency that it became worthless (see picture of kids playing with blocks of money again to see how worthless). The Funding Fathers said "never again" and stripped that power from both Congress and the states. The first by the vote I referenced and the states by forbidding states from issuing "bills of credit" in the US Constitution. Bills of Credit were what the Founding Fathers called paper money. [10] "The painful experience of the runaway inflation and collapse of the Continental dollar prompted the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to include the gold and silver clause into the United States Constitution so that the individual states could not issue bills of credit."

FYI: Many of those Founding Fathers suffered substantial losses when the paper money in their possession became worthless

The first step to curing lack of knowledge is recognizing that you suffer that condition. Hopefully the above has been of help.96.237.134.44 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about modern nations in recent history because your argument was intended to apply to the present day. Before the industrial revolution and modern Capitalism things may well have been different. Clearly it was a mistake for me to even enter into that little digression as I was vague and left you with a little loophole you could use to carry on arguing. As I have said before, we are not here to argue the rights or wrongs of your opinions.

Please stop banging on about an issue that was done and dusted more than a century ago. We already have adequate coverage of the dispute in Legal Tender Cases. Trying to resurrect it in a modern context reeks of advocacy. You are seeking to use Wikipedia to bootstrap notability for your fringe opinion. You are not helping Wikipedia by insisting on doing this nor is this a productive way for you to proceed. If you want to engage in polemic you need to go somewhere where polemic is acceptable. You will be able to make your points without them being removed. People will be more willing to actually engage with your arguments rather than tick you off for using the wrong venue. Surely that would serve your purposes better as well as ours.

Much as I would enjoy discussing the subject in an appropriate venue, I respect Wikipedia too much to be drawn into further inappropriate discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also talking about modern times. The US Constitution forbids paper money to the states and does not grant that power to the Federal government. Per the 10th Amendment any power not granted the federal government continues to reside in either the states or the people. Further at the Constitutional Convention this power was TAKEN AWAY from the federal government by a vote of 9 to 2 by the delegates to that convention. Until such time as there is a Constitutional amendment granting this power to the federal government, this issue will fester.96.237.134.44 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It can fester somewhere else. Unless it gains enough traction to become notable as a campaign it does not belong here. This is not a blog or a social networking site. We are not here to debate the truth of various economic theories only how to document them. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Anuna Sources

Hi Daniel - I have to say that there hasn't been a stampede to put sources on the Anuna article that you cited for Conflict of Interest, and I am now pretty reluctant to add or delete much [although I believe someone here referenced the Celtic Woman ladies who used to sing with us]. I don't intend doing any more interventions on this page, so at what point will the "Conflict of Interest" notice be removed? Michael Anuna (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped that by now other people would have edited the article enough to make it moot. The tag is meant to encourage more people to work on the article but it hasn't done so. The article was recently assesed as top importance for WikiProject Irish Music but that hasn't created as much interest as I would expect.

I wouldn't worry about the tag remaining but if you really object I would be prepared to remove it as it does not indicate an ongoing problem. Anybody interested in the past problems can look on the talk page (which most people just reading Wikipedia tend not to do). --DanielRigal (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

194.46.249.61 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Yes - that is a bit odd - and in fact we are getting lots of referrals from the page according to Google Analytics. I think the issue is that we are so old in comparison to most other groups out there [and so, well, safe] that younger people, and I mean anyone from 35 down, simply don't know enough about our history and come across us full-formed and over-analysed. Or we are just boring. I would like the notice taken down, and I will encourage people to update it from here on in. Thanks Daniel.194.46.249.61 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on talk page refactoring for software comparison

Hi DanielRigal, I notice that you have made a number of contributions to Comparison of remote desktop software and its Talk page. I have just refactored the talk page, the motive being to prepare the contents of the talk page, ready to make them more immediately useful for improving the structure and content of the main article. As you are an experienced editor, I welcome your comments on the refactor.

I am wondering if similar refactoring could help with discussions on other Software Comparisons. Unfortunately the guidelines on Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages do NOT have specific mention of Comparison talk pages. Although Comparisons specifically states that comparisons do not have to follow any predetermined format, the majority of Software comparisons do follow a similar structure, and so perhaps there is scope to improve the talk pages behind others, as a step towards improving the content of the articles themselves.

Do you have any opinion on this? Cheers. Artemgy (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is going to go down. On the one hand, I can see the logic in it. On the other hand, the normal way to handle talk pages is to keep everything chronological and archive off old conversations if the matter is resolved or moot. Refactoring does seem like quite a lot of work (more so than archiving) and the additional benefit seems relatively small to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea for article

Hi there, I noticed that you're probably watching the SEX (boutique) article. It was suggested to me by SuggestBot that I might like editing that article and so, it has been on my watchlist as well. I noticed an earlier, uncited addition by an editor that only needed some copy editing (and citations...) I left the material there, because I know, in a strictly apocryphal sense, (or I vaguely remember that I read it somewhere in the past 25-30 years) about Steph Raynor from BOY buying lots of Westwood's leftover stock. I don't see the need for a separate Seditionaries (boutique) article, other than a redirect to SEX, but there certainly should be an article on BOY (boutique), which WP currently does not have. BOY was pretty important in the 80's, anyways, so from a historical angle. However, I can't find any sources, and wonder if you may be more of a "fashion maven" than I could claim, and that you night have access to print resources or fashion journals that have some 80's historical articles I/we could use. Thanks in advance! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Removal of Content

Hi there. I'm not intending to add promotional content to Wikipedia--just facts about the WS_FTP product. These facts were previously listed on these and other pages, as recently as two months ago, but have since been deleted and I'm not sure why or by whom. I was just trying to get that information back up there to make the Wikipedia entry more complete and inclusive. My contributions have been fact-based and unbiased, entirely without opinion or tone, and follow the same format as the other contributions in that and other pages with a chart and list of software. You suggested that I create a different account in order to post the content that I wanted to contribute and I did, but I'm now flagged as a suspected sock puppet. I guess I'm a bit confused as to why that happened, especially since I followed your suggestion. It would be great to get some guidance. Thank you for reaching out and I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon with a suggestion of what to do. Best, Deirdre. Deirdrechristensen (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see reply on User talk:IpswitchFT. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rob McDowall

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob McDowall (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wimpy Kid Wiki

Check out the new wiki I created on Wikia! 99.19.92.173 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. Although it isn't something I would be interested in working on myself, it is great to have a place for people who want to write about Wimpy Kid stuff in more detail than Wikipedia allows and without being tied down by our rules. Good luck with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Culvers House Primary School

Hi DanielRigal! I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion of Culvers House Primary School. Please note that WP:CSD#A7 specifically excludes schools from the criterion's scope. Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. Sorry. I forgot about that. I have PRODed it instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Copied Bollywood Songs

---

I am sure & personally feel that these songs are copied, but not aware weather they are authorized by the Original owners or not. For matching I am trying to put You Tube links for both the songs, whom so ever is referring to this page can listen both of them to be assure.

But if this is causing any issue to Wikipedia integrity, I have not such issue and you can delete or withdraw the information. I mean no harm to anybody.

thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analizer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed all the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analizer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzo Gatto

Thank you for noticing the copyright problem on Lorenzo Gatto, and for tidying up the article after my edits. Where a copyvio article is about a notable topic, I prefer to repair the article by replacing the copyvio text with a neutral stub. I hope that other people will now be able to expand the article by adding more properly cited information about him. - Eastmain (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that a lot of your hard work is put up for deletion. I can relate. You maybe interested in a group which has helped me add references to articles up for deletion.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, DanielRigal. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How to take care of a Cactus

Hi Daniel, just to let you know that I've removed your speedy tag from How to take care of a Cactus and replaced it with a prod. The page did not appear to be a test page, pages are normally only tagged as tests if they only contain content like: Bold text Italic text ^Hello If the page does not contain such content then please seek a more appropriate means of deletion. I've struck your warning at the users talk page and added the prod warning instead. Please ask if you have any questions (although I'm logging out now so there may be a delay).
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I was using "test page" in a slightly wider sense. It is clear from his contributions that he is testing to see what does and does not get deleted and just playing around to see how things work here, rather than reading any of the rules. If that is not in scope for speedy deletion as a test page then PROD works for me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)