Archive Made on 01-02-2009

Just archiving some junk I don't want on my main talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel Simanek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nvineeth (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

When adding a new section to a talk page, please do so at the BOTTOM of the talk page, not the top. Mayalld (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

If you're going to edit grammar (yes, it's spelled grammar, not grammer), please be sure that you know what you're doing, and you're not just guessing. The UW-Madison Writing Center website can be helpful for both grammar and punctuation, such as commas before coordinating conjunctions. --CivilDisobedience 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone contributes to WP in his or her own way, but WP editors typically rely on their strengths in doing so. I counted at least 18 spelling errors in the short edit summaries on your user contribution page, and have found a number of grammatical and punctuation mistakes in your writing so far, so it would seem that copyediting is not your forté. This is not meant as an insult. (See:WP:AOBF). Your enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to WP are welcome, but if everyone contributed what they are best at, it would make for less cleanup. I don't contribute photos or create tables because those are not my strong points. Perhaps you should think about what your strong points are and how you can best contribute to WP. --CivilDisobedience 05:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give it a break!

I'm very familiar with Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting. It clearly states, "Start new topics at the bottom of the page." (It looks as though someone else has already informed you of that procedure above.) Therefore, the Photos section of the University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium Talk page, dated 30 December 2008, should be below the Class rating section, dated 20 September 2008. I'm not going to revert the page, because I don't get involved in edit warring. I'm just going to allow you to do the right thing...

You really need to stop being so ego-invested in your contributions and so sensitive about edits of your work. As WP:OWN states, "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly ..., do not submit it." --CivilDisobedience 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "The Photos section was added on Dec 30th 2007 and the Class rating was added on Sept 20 2008." Therefore, the Photos section belongs below the Class rating section. I really think it's time you took a break. --CivilDisobedience 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do buddy. I don't think arguing over whether or Dec 30 2007 or Sept 20 2008 is newer (newer at the bottom, remember?) is worth my time, or yours for that matter. I tried to be civil in all of my responses to you, but I really can't do anything more when things like this start coming into question. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Made on 02-14-2009

Problems with House on the Rock

I noticed you added a clean-up template to House on the Rock and was wondering where the problem is? I was going to try to fix the issue, but I couldn't find it (probably because I am not really sure what I am looking for). Could you point the issue out in the article so I can fix it? Thanks Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks!! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Horlick High School

Yeah, no problem. I think the tag goes for the "spirit horn" section as well, anyhow we'll continue this on the article talk page.-SilverOrion ^{(You talk way too much!)}

Rollback

I have Simanek/Talk Archive 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Pan of Lake Lake Mendota in Fall.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pan of Lake Lake Mendota in Fall.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed now. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Made on 08-20-2011

Lake Mendota

Thanks for the panorama. FleetCaptain (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very nice panorama of the lake. Thanks for including it! – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Non-conference games vs conferences playoffs

Basically, the only games considered "conference" games are those that count towards the conference record of a team. Contrastingly, all games count towards the overall record of a team. Essentially what happens is only regular season games are considered "conference" games. NCAA hockey is pretty confusing, because they lump all stats together. There is no real distinction between regular season and payoffs like you have in pro or junior leagues. All games except exhibition games count towards overall standings, so no one will know the national champion teams' final record until they win the championship. What we do know is their final conference record, because only regular season games count towards it. As I move through my whole clean sweep of college hockey articles, I'll add more notes to articles to clear this kind of stuff up. But for now, the way it is is how it should be (the same way Wisconsin's first game of the playoffs is technically considered their 37th game of the season, even though in leagues like the NHL, it would be the first of a whole new set of games. Thanks for asking though, I'm glad someone is at least paying attention to this stuff! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: College Hockey Templates

The thing with doing them freehand is that in the end, they take up less space. With the template, you end up having all the fields to fill in which you have to label with the "field = ...". I'm a huge template fan, but only when it reduces the total number of charachters on a page. So for now I'd say the template might actually clog the page further, rather than reduce it. However, I do like the idea. I would suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey and gathering the opinion of the general project community. We use these free hand game log templates in all team hockey season articles, so maybe some further input to create some ideas on how to reduce the template size and make it work. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent articles on ports

That worried me as well. The problem is that we can't really nom them with the rationale "we think they are copied. We couldn't find where from though, so they might not be". Instead we need to find where the text is copied from. I'd suggest googling the username of the editor who created them; I've got to go out in a tick, but I'll trawl the tubes when I get back. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Luckiest Girl

Thanks for the info. De728631 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. :)

Thank you very much for asking. If you'd like, I can undelete the original, but there isn't much to go on. By all means feel free to write a suitable article. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll save you the trouble and undelete it so that you can tag it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...disregard that last message. Nice save. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Computer deleted

WP:CSD G10. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

internet troll

in the article troll (internet) under the section 'usage' you removed:

Frequently, someone who has been labeled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves. Useful advice for dealing with someone considered to be a troll is, rather than using that term, to ask them questions such as: "What is your intent?" or other questions relevant to the discussion rather than using the ad hominem label "troll."

you said 'this is an encyclopedia not an advice column. yes this is advice but its advice about 'usage' of the term 'troll'. specifically its says not to 'use' the term (to attack trolls) because trolls themselves often try to label their opponents as trolls to deflect attention from themselves. As such it is entirely appropriate for the article. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOW -- ... an article should not read like a "how-to" style ... The exact quote was:

Useful advice for dealing with someone considered to be a troll is, rather than using that term, to ask them questions such as: "What is your intent?" or other questions relevant to the discussion rather than using the ad hominem label "troll."

To me, that reads like how-to, whether it is "how to deal with a troll" or "how to use the word 'troll'". In either case, it did not belong in the article worded as such.

On another note, that entire section has since been gutted by a different user, who cited WP:OR. I don't care if you re-add the deleted text as long as it is (a) cited and, (b) worded to answer "how is it used?" and not "how do I use it?"

Also, I would prefer to continue this discussion (if necessary) on the article's talk page so other editors can review on any consensus we may come to. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox card game

Were you who created that highly stylistic, well-diagramed, blue-tone infobox that was changed to a low-profile, badly diagramed, black and white infobox on this date Tunads ? Krenakarore (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but to answer your question, 'yes' I added the blue tone to the infobox in addition to cleaning up the code. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright Daniel, the infobox will be changed again and again (which is something that, unfortunately, leads us to think that the work is really far from over). The major point in my question lies on this premise. Things do change, sometimes for the better (as you did before), sometimes... I know that Thumperward may be one of your best friends here and I wish he could take me as much as a friend as he is yours, despite my clear disappointment for the change in your work (perhaps that happened under your assistance).
As I said, maybe tomorrow he changes his mind and add a bit of color, change a few names here and there, diagram the presentation of the infobox in a more stylistic way, just the way you did before. I wish you both all the very best in your work, hoping that we may come to terms as for a better infobox someday. Truely, Krenakarore (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first encounter with Thumperward, and I asked him about the changes he made regarding the Infobox on his talk page. I actually like the blue better, but if that goes against some style guildline/trend as he claims, then I am just going to have to deal with it. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, it's not a link, so why not blue, daltonism ? This certainly does not apply to an infobox. It's not only because of the color Daniel, it's also the style. See fr.wikipedia or de.wikipedia for instance. We know there are only two ways to diagram a newspaper, the right or the wrong way. You can't prevent him from contributing to Wiki, but he can't prevent you from improving his work. Your work is good man, good. Take this up with 2005. He's the best ! Krenakarore (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your simply tireless contributions to women's hockey seasonal articles and standings templates, I award you The Running Man Barnstar. Maple Leaf (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC/Yale box score

Thanks for the props! Would you believe that's the first major edit I've made to Wikipedia in at least eight months? I happened to catch the end of that game, checked out the Wiki article to catch myself up on the bracket, and thought, "Man, I'd hate to be the guy who ends up putting that box score in there." I came back later, after the box score was posted on uscho.com, and bit the bullet so some other poor schlub wouldn't have to. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hi, Tunads. Regarding this edit summary, which provision of WP:OVERLINK do you think applies here? Powers ^T 11:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a combination of several policies, overlink being one them. Overlink applies because each term should only be linked once per article (or section, depending on the circumstances). The other big thing here is notability. A player winning a regional award is enough to get a mention in the tournament's article, but is not enough for them to deserve an article of their own. I could go on with a few more (i.e. WP:CRYSTAL) but I think that's enough. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly ask because it seems to be a convention to link those names in NCAA Tournament articles. And certainly many of the players so mentioned will eventually meet WP:N as professionals, so, per Wikipedia:Red link, it would be prudent to have the redlinks in place, wouldn't it? Powers ^T 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying many of the players will be professionals is a bit of an exaggeration. For example, RIT has no draft picks and no scholarship players. In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't assume these players will be pro's until they actually play a pro game. Finally, linking every instance of a player in an article is most defiantly overlinking. If a player scores 2 goals and an assist, they shouldn't be linked every time their name appears in the box score. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be okay with not linking them every time in the box scores, even though that's what's been done for previous years. But it's not crystal-ball-gazing to use redlinks. You'll note that WP:Linking#Red links doesn't say anything about notability; it says, "If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept." Granted, notability is part of "encyclopedic", but I think the spirit of the guideline is that we should err on the side of having too many redlinks rather than too few. Powers ^T 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Blake Geoffrion

The ice hockey notability requirements are here. At a glance, I would say not yet, but if he wins the Hobey Baker, then it's a certain yes. I suggest you ask at WT:HOCKEY, where different opinions could be offered. Hope this helps. Maxim_(talk) 22:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Unified Kernel

Thanks for noticing. Cheers!

Re: Changes to College hockey season template

Ah, apologies; I really should have left a link to the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive43#Template:NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason is where I brought it up. I believe my reversion was in line with WP:BRD. If you still think your changes improve the template, I would encourage you to create it in a sandbox so that they can be compared side-by-side, then propose the changes for review by the WikiProject. Powers ^T 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]