This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanielRigal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why Do You Keep Classifying the Nazi Party As Far Right If You're Trying to Have a Neutral and Current POV?
If you want to advocate your version of "common sense" then please get a blog or participate in web forums. This is an encyclopaedia and we have to reflect the sources, not our own views. We are not here to change the world but to document it. Of course, we document dissenting views as well as the mainstream ones but on only in a proportionate way and only line with reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel
Bill was born in 1962 (21st March I think). Cant give you any formal citation for this but I was at primary and secondary school with him from 1967 to 1980
The Cosenza player chasing him is folklore in Southend and common knowledge
I appreciate that the slight problem with cult heroes is where the line falls between unrefutable fact and knowledge of fans there at the time, however, all comments are honest and accurate as far as I know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.214.195 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, DanielRigal. You have new messages at Nemogbr's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's actually on the section. I needed assistance on the two articles. I thought I saved the message.
The covert racism article seems to have gained the attention of some BNP supporters.
A tag has been placed on The Wimpy Kid Movie Diary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions, such as The Wimpy Kid Movie Diary. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. iBen01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
On Glasgow and Lanarkshire
Daniel, I have commented on the talk page of my entry. You are incorrect to state that the subject is covered in the main article as the question is not even mentioned. However I will accept your deletion of my Glasgow, Lanarkshire page on condition that you remove it completely, including the redirect. the effect of leaving the redirect in place is to reinforce the misapprehension that I am trying to remedy. it would be like redirecting Washington, Tyne and Wear to Washington DC.
I didn't make the redirect and I was a little surprised when it was created. If you think it is misleading, and that could well be the case, then you can either propose it for deletion or change the redirect to point to Lanarkshire instead.
As for the Glasgow article, it does make Glasgow's status as a Unitary Authority very clear. It doesn't go into detail about people using older terminology and I can't see any real encyclopaedic reason to do so. It is a bit like some people saying that London is in Middlesex (which doesn't even exist any more). There are many such misapprehensions out there. Unless this one has received significant coverage in reliable sources I don't think we need to cover it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
+
Daniel, how do I propose the redirect be deleted? Your point about London/Middlesex is exactly one of the points I make when correcting people. There very definitely is a need to state that Glasgow is not in Lanarkshire as it is frequently asserted to me that it is. About 50% of post sent to Glasgow is incorrectly addressed as a result of this ignorance. I don't see the same mistake being made wrt London, which is precisely my point.
Paul Coyne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC).
Hi, both edits are false. The initial intro page has been vandalized by user T22878. The actual intros tell that these 3 castes (more than 10% of the Tamil population) are of Tamil Royal lineage!!... The ref given are false, just playonwords (thevar, dewar are (respectable) words before being a caste name). These castes used to be soldiers of the kings and Land lords (please check the initial refs) and after the collapse of then ancient order some of them managed to found their little kingdoms (this was the initial intro of this wiki page, much more accurate). Thanks.90.46.32.29 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks. I was actually leaving a note for the speedy-tagger, a conscientious and hard-working patroller, to explain my declining his tag. I'm grateful for your application of the stub tags, general clean-up and moving the article to its correctly-spelled title. If you have any ideas of a portal where this article could find someone to champion it further, I would be grateful; I think this has barely enough for retention, but needs work by someone interested in the topic. But thanks for your help. Accounting4Taste:talk17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've found a way to bring it to the attention of the Games portal and will leave it at that, unless you feel like contributing something further. Thanks again. Accounting4Taste:talk18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, it was my goof. When I saw that the first reference was for her age, I accidentally went to the external links section. That's where I got '77 from, the first link of the ext. links. Whether that link is considered reliable or not, I don't know. But I know that IMDb is not considered reliable for biographical info, so I've removed the date entirely. I don't have the time now to look into whether or not that first ext link, Eros-something, is reliable or not. I just know that IMDb isn't. If this is so contentious, then it should probably have a section on the talk page. If for no other reason than to help clarify for those who haven't done all the research and seen the manager's attempts to set back the clock. Dismas|(talk)19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
BBC Radio 7
Thanks for reverting anonymous IP's repeated attempts to remove any reference to audience figures for children's programmes on Radio 7. I've tried starting a discussion to check out what the objection is but nobody answers so it becomes hard not to get involved in an editting war. With your revert it looks less like I'm some lonely maniac fighting against the sea. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sinusitis - removal of natural nasal spray section
The majority of people reading this article will be suffering from sinusitis or will know someone who is. Very few people, unless they are studying medicine, would choose to read up on a subject such as sinusitis. You are correct in stating that wikipedia is encyclopedic however that should not stop plain language being used and references being made to everyday products so that the average reader can better understand the concept (in this case natural nasal sprays).
The word 'claim' has been used extensively with regards to natural nasal sprays so their is no bias.
You state that the trials are laughable, which in effect means you think that the Institute of Asthma and Allergies in the U.S. is laughable. I can assure it is far from it and has helped many people - please try visiting their website.
Why you seen fit to remove a section of this article which could be beneficial to peoples health is beyond me.
I make no comment on any organisation. I merely point out that a trial with 24 people in it seems meaningless. If you can provide a reliable reference that show bodies independent of the organisation taking that trial seriously then it can go in, whatever its faults, but not without. A double blind trial with only 24 people in it seems laughable to me but if you can show that respectable medical professionals writing in respectable medical journals think otherwise then I will accept that.
More generally, I think you are confused about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a directory or a self-diagnosis site. We should be helping people to understand the subject but not offering them advice. In fact, it would be dangerous and irresponsible for us to do so.
Finally, I think there is a problem with your use of the term homoeopathic. Homoeopathy is a mystical belief in treatments that have no active ingredients and no reputable research body has found them to be effective beyond their placebo effect. If these natural sprays are effective then they can not be homoeopathic. Possibly they contain a small amount of active ingredient?
I noticed your comment here about using (or misusing) Archive.org to push a point of view. Could you take a look here, and if you feel that you can form an opinion based on the evidence you see, help advise this dispute? - CRedit 1234 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Further, take a look at this, and think about what that means regarding saying a business was identified as having been "operating illegally", when not a single mainstream news source, or any public court record, seem to substantiate the exceptional claim. A few of us think two tag-teamers are trying to use Wikipedia to push a libelous claim, but I'd like an independent analysis. - CRedit 1234 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Dont come for discussion in mukkulathor forum
Its meant for our community alone if u belong to the community u can take part, its complicated to handle users like you please dont mistake me.The discussion about the kshatriyas is unwanted because Tamil is far superior and older than sanskrit and kshathriya is a sanskrit terminology for martial race and mukkulathor need not prove anything to so called "aryans" our community belong to southern region in India dont mix up with northerners our traditions and culture are different and yes THEVARS belong to the Great emperors of CHOLA, PANDYA, and CHERA dynasty. South region of india belongs to the KUMARI KANDAM(LEMURIAN CONTINENT),Where languages and culture born please refer to it. I'm sorry i'm not here to argue with you i want to tell the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karikala thevar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Everybody is entitled to comment on any talk page so long as the comments are sensible and polite. You can't delete people's comments because you don't feel they belong. Nobody owns an article or talk page. If you continue removing content you are likely to get yourself blocked. I recommend to stop and read the welcome message for information about how Wikipedia works. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments were not sensible and polite
Thanks for your feedback, The people who discussed were not polite and the statements were harsh and the truth is been covered, moreover people don't have any idea and ignorant about the community and they can clarify the doubts but must not make irrelevant statement and that is the reason for removing unwanted topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karikala thevar (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. You removed valid discussion and replaced it with claims of ethnic/cultural superiority. That is unacceptable. Please stop before you get blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Page-move request
Hello,
My request to move this to an article page has been denied because that title is blacklisted. I'm a bit unclear on how to request a controversial move. Any help? Bruce Swanson 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I am not sure either. You need to ask why it got blacklisted and show that your draft is not subject to the same problems. Maybe somebody repeatedly used it as a coat-rack to push their agenda or was generally abusing it. I had a quick look at your draft and it might need a bit of work however it certainly seems a reasonable start and I can't see anything fundamentally wrong with the subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing valid tags is a recognised type of vandalism. Given that the tags have been removed and put back a few times now I thought it reasonable to tag it as vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Do you own this wikipedia Mr.Daniel? I simply discussed in that page u r so rude and harsh anyways thanx for forigners contribution to Tamil people. I'm quiting this wiki and u'r taken in to notification once again thanx a lot.--Be2bi (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That's entirely up to you. You are perfectly free to stay and try to learn to edit within rules. If language is the problem then maybe one of the other language Wikipedia's would suit you better. Anyway, whatever you decide to do, it is your decision. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
What entirely up to me? U r not the owner for Wikipedia, Its a discussion for the topic which can be included in that article i was just asking the opinion and u please don't try act too smart Mr.Grammar by saying language problem blah blah blah lets stop it u try to be decent moderator first u analyze a issue and then discuss and raise u cant simply judge anyone statement just like that.--117.202.129.114 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but I really can't understand what you are saying or why you are so upset. I have not been rude to you. I have not tried to make you leave Wikipedia. All I have done is try to stop you using the talk pages as a general forum for discussing opinions, which is against our policies. I have tried to make helpful suggestions. If you are going to misinterpret everything I say as rude then I might as well stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPI
There appears to be quite a bit of backlog for the CheckUsers on WP:SPI. Thankfully, the sockpuppet you have been monitoring is fairly easy to identify, even if his rapid edits are tedious to revert. Hopefully the backlog will clear soon. The upcoming elections might help matters, though the results of the elections are pretty far off in the future. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are right, but good faith is hardly there when it comes to Chaldeans vs Assyrians. Assyrian Nationalists have been forcing the name "Assyrian" for a while. I just didn't know they were doing it in Wikipedia as well.
Anyway, what I have removed from the article is simply the "Assyrianization" stuff that has no references to it. I had to clean this article from that nonsense. I believe that politics should not produce fault information. My intentions are solely for the correctness of this Wikipedia article.
My name is Jonathan Horley and I have read your article on discount-licensing.com which you wrote a number of months ago. On the discussion page you asked if there were any other competitors or players in the market apart from Usedsoft. I founded discount-licensing.com along with Noel Unwin in 2005 and left the company 2 years ago. There are a number of articles from the November 2005 launch, of which this is one[1].
They can all be found by typing "Noel Unwin" "Jonathan Horley" into google. Last year I started Value Licensing which can be accessed at [2].
Given that I co-founded discount-licensing.com and I am have set-up Value Licensing in the same area, I believed it would be worth mentioning in the discount-licensing.com article. Even though I think that this information is appropriate to go into the article, I do however realise that if I wrote directly into the article this would be a clear conflict of interest. This is why I have come to you directly.
My suggested line in the article would read as follows under the Company history section incorporating the first line which is already there:
Hmmm. I'd like to help but I would be happier if the there was some independent coverage of Value Licensing. Unfortunately, "Value Licensing" is a very hard thing to Google for as it gets lost in hits for "open value licensing" and similar terms. Without any independent coverage of the company it is hard to justify its inclusion. I am happy to add the sentence naming Noel and yourself as the original directors though. The other bit can go in if you can point me towards some media coverage for Value Licensing. If that does not exist at the moment then it can always be added later.
In the meantime, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you will consider having a look at how the articles on MS Licensing can be improved as they are in a pretty poor state at the moment. I am sure you could add some value there. I will add the standard welcome message to your talk page. That has lots of helpful links on how to get started. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is now independant verification relating to Value Licensing so I have redone the edit to the discount-licensing page and added a link[3] to that verfication you asked for.
"Discount-licensing.com was founded as Disclic Ltd in July 2004 by Jonathan Horley and Noel Unwin.[1] Jonathan Horley left discount-licensing.com and has subsequently set-up 'Value Licensing'[4] which is also a vendor or broker of second hand Microsoft software licences.[2] In 2006 Disclic Ltd changed its name to Discount-licensing.com Ltd.[3]"
Can you update the page please or if not let me know the correct way to go about getting it changed? Thank you.
I have put it in more or less as you suggested. I did drop the link to Value Licencing's website and swapped the order slightly. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Value Licensing link be in the external links? Discount-licensing.com is there along with Usedsoft another competitor. Also in the same section the eopen site should be replaced with Volume Licensing Service Center(VLSC). The new link is here[5]. It is now the sole website for users to access Volume licensing agreements and replaces MVLS and eOpen. I've noticed there isn't a Wikipedia page on the VLSC. It had a lot of problems and bad press at the turn of year 2009/10. Is it worth doing one? Jonhorley (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Noel has registered an account and removed the new material. I reinstated it but this could get difficult if he does it again. Is there bad feeling between the two of you? I don't see why he should object to you getting a brief mention. It is not done in a way that detracts from Discount Licensing at all.
I think it is well worth doing an article on VLSC. This is one of several key MS licensing topics that we need good articles on. The problems should be covered but should not the the main thrust of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had any contact with Noel in a long time but there's certainly no bad feeling from my point of view. I clearly understand him wanting to protect his companies interest because he would prefer potential suppliers or customers not knowing of a competitor. This is why it is likely he would have deleted the latest changes along with some possible earlier ones. I thought by coming to you directly, it would stop any multiple insertions and deletions which would have happened if I had edited the discount-licensing.com page myself. I would have expected Noel, on behalf of his company, to do the same as he clearly has a conflict if he makes any amendments. I had seen a couple of attributable amendments in the previous year i.e. where UsedSoft, also a competitor was taken out and you reinserted that with an explanation. Hopefully the current amendments will suffice as in that case.
I will write a draft article on the VLSC and let you know when its done so you can have a look at it.
Also I proposed above to have Value Licensing's website included in the list of external links on the discount-licensing.com page, given that UsedSoft and discount-licensing.com web links are both there. Do you agree with my suggestion about it going there?Jonhorley (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. DanielRigal. I have sent you an e-mail (through Wikipedia) about an article that caught my eye and the issues surrounding it. Thank you. IronBreww (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not been following recent developments on the article but to answer your points:
Use of Archive.org is legitimate to demonstrate what Interpol published in the past. Nobody has ever suggested that Archive.org alter or falsify their archive and it is considered reliable even though they are not official archivers for Interpol. Using Archive.org is a bit like going to a library to consult old editions of newspapers or public records. That said, it is possible to misuse Archive.org. If somebody were to pick a past version of a website which contains claims that the publisher later repudiated or amended then it could give a false impression. Do we have any proof that Interpol is still after Soriano? If they are then the description as a fugitive can stay. If they have definitely dropped the matter then references to him being a fugitive should be put into the past tense and probably removed from the lead section but kept elsewhere. If they have simply chosen not to mention him following a reorganisation of their website, that is inconclusive. That could indicate that he is no longer seen as a priority for Interpol but may still be wanted.
The "Awards" section has, in the past, contained a big list of awards that Soriano's own organisations had given him. If we mention those at all then we have to explain the context. This is likely to make him look ridiculous. I would be inclined to leave those out entirely, unless there is so much RS coverage of them that we can't ignore them. Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles. An "Awards" section can give the impression of a self-aggrandising "trophy cabinet". In the case of a man who gives himself awards, you have to expect people to be suspicious but that should not prevent a brief mention of any genuine and notable awards.
Aggressive warning of newbies is not a good thing but I don't see how it would encourage people to engage in sockpuppetry. Genuine, definite sockpuppets and puppeteers need to be dealt with quickly but there are bound to be genuine newbies as well. Rather than diving straight in with the warning templates when a newbie makes a bad edit that might be COI (or whatever) it is better to start with one of the Welcome templates aimed at potentially problematic users. This lets the user know that they did something wrong in a much more gentle way and helps them to get it right in future. Watching how they respond to that will often give a clue as to whether they are a genuine newbie or a sockpuppet. I appreciate that the user you mentioned can be a little "spikey" but it is a general issue with articles where sockpuppetry is rife that it becomes easy for an editor to get trigger-happy with the reverts and warnings. I have found myself doing it from time to time. Editors need to take care to avoid this but the blame lies with the sockpuppeteers because they create the toxic editing environment where every anonymous or newbie edit seems suspect.
Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. As a user who just recently "dropped in" about the article, I did some research regarding the subject. I found out that the Soriano, despite many legal troubles, received numerous third-party awards. We need to verify which could be mentioned in the "subject's" article. Since I am editing this article, I found out the the latter's article mentioned some awards while Soriano's article list no award (even if someone gives an valid RS, an editor rejects it). The article, in my opinion, is somehow, "spinning". Many of pro-"Soriano" and anti-"Soriano" editors are pushing the article to different levels of extremeness (super-POV?). This is what I saw in talk page. In fact, I was just recently accused of being "untrustworthy" and "impartial" by a mysterious anon just because I believe that Soriano is a fugitive from Philippine law. Kinda insulting for someone who just arrived to try to help subject's article. IronBreww (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this tennis match that has started to ensue over Mr Horley, we did not actually read the history and assumed My Horley was simply making the amendments himself - hence the deletions.
Mentioning other competitors does round off the Discount-Licensing.com article quite well and so we are not complaining about that – therefore, we are not opposed to including ‘Value Licensing’ as another competitor as creates some awareness that the market is growing, but surely mention it alongside other competitors in the next paragraph alongside Usedsoft who have been in the market much longer and are not working from home like Mr Horley is - it adds little credibility to this secondary market when the opening sentence refers to a tiny new competitor who’s website is hard to find via the web and incapable to demonstrating any sales/profit based on its most recent accounts. Note that there is another more longer term competitors that has been operating in the market from the start called 'Susensoftware' (also based in Germany) that you may want to include, - it also sells second hand SAP like ourselves. Note that there have been two other UK competitors that we are aware of, but both have since closed.
So, specifically regarding Mr Horley, we unfortunately cannot go into detail for legal reasons as to why he left, but we are simply concerned ongoing about having Mr Horley's name directly associated with Discount-Licensing.com in this way and I presume that the original objective of your article on Discount-Licensing.com was not to plug Mr Horley's new company, which is clearly what Mr Horley is trying to accomplish with his insertion the first sentence of this article.
I trust that this explains our position and that the article is amended back to where it originally was, including a mention of the other competitor companies later on, rather than plugging an 'ego' of a previous ex-employee of Discount-Licensing.com.
Anons, most probably just one person toying with different IPs, are keeping busy doing the "usual" with matching deceptive edit summaries. It may be best to protect the page from non-established users for the time-being, but it's whatever you deem best. Thank you! – Shannon RoseTalk15:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
DanielRigal, I am inviting you to join the discussions here. The issues are similarly (but not 100%) related to IronBreww's lobbying above. Here is the link. I am trying to prove to the #1 Soriano critic (see the link) that the lead section of the Eliseo Soriano article is POV and more importantly, libelous. 180.191.66.131 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Harry Woolman
Thanks for fixing the picture to thumbnail and organizing the Categories.
I have one quick question for you. Why am I a sockpupeteer becasue I like to stand up for the rights of people whom have done nothing to you? The Classic Metal Show has had nothing to do with you, and yet you still said, and I quote, "This is not a article for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia." Well, good sir, I believe that you have awaken the sleeping giant. This is a crime, as the show has many loyal fans of which I am one of, as many more are. I respect your authority, but do not agree with the position that you have taken on The Clasic Metal Show article. I wish you much luck, and thank you for rewriting many articles for those who may use them and the valuble information that they hold. I especially like your section on the VNC protocol, which I use all of the time!
Thank you,
SlayerFan716 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can only guess what you are talking about because as far as I know you are a brand new user (registered at 2010-06-05T23:29:54 UTC, according to the logs). I have not accused you of sockpuppetry or anything else.
That said, your bizarre message has made me wonder if you are CMS Mikey coming back for another go at me. If you hadn't posted it, I wouldn't have had any reason to be suspicious. In fact, I wouldn't even have noticed you at all. Posting it was not a good idea.
If you are CMS Mikey I could just tag your account as a possible sockpuppet but I am going to give you a chance to show that you have grown up since last time. If you are now able to contribute to Wikipedia sensibly and constructively then I will leave you alone and there is no reason for you to get into trouble with anybody else. If you start making articles about non-notable radio shows or posting rude messages then you will eventually get blocked again. Its your choice. You need to let go of your obsession with getting a Classic Metal Show article on Wikipedia. If it is notable, somebody independent will write that.. There are lots of other articles about metal bands, albums and related subjects that you could help out on but you need to do it within the Wikipedia rules. The welcome message on your talk page is a good starting point. I hope you make the right choice. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
US political spectrum
Some US editors see the left-right spectrum as dictated solely by the extent of government control. The reasons for control are seen as irrelevant. Here is a link to a video that explains their viewpoint. Notice that this reverses the left and right at the time of the French revolution. The Fox News commentator Glen Beck actually wrote an introduction to Cleon Skousen's book and the John Birch Society co-sponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. Here is a link to an article about Canada, where both British and American conservatism developed independently of each other. TFD (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What I was wondering is how sincere this all is? As far as I can see the American right is not remotely libertarian on anything other than financial issues. Their state is as big, intrusive and secretive as as the states proposed by their opponents. I don't recall them repudiating Dick Cheney as a "socialist". I also doubt very much that they would recognise those on the on the libertarian left (who are strongly libertarian in everything but financial matters) as even approximately kindred spirits. I suspect that they would be quite appalled to meet a genuine anarchist. This is why it all rings bogus to me. It also keeps on coming back to a few names who have a lot of media coverage but not much academic clout. Furthermore, I am not aware of any consensus on its use even within the USA. It seems to come only from the right and it seems contrived to serve their ends. How accepted is it really and, if it is accepted, how do academics clarify which sense they are using the words with? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There is in the U. S. a shared belief in market capitalism, which was well documented in Louis Hartz's The liberal tradition in America (1955).[6] These beliefs are extremely strong in the U. S. conservative movement. The shared liberal consensus ironically is seen as promoting intolerance and conformity, with both sides portraying the other in extreme terms. Two books I found helpful are Sara Diamond's Roads to dominion (1995)[7] and a collection of essays, The radical right (2002).[8] While Cheney was not called a socialist, the Right strongly opposed Bush policies on education and immmigration reform, the stimulus package and the bank bailout, all of which were supported by Democrats. Libertarians, such as Ron Paul strongly opposed the foreign wars and the Patriot Act, although they were attacked by the mainstream Right. The progressives in Congress call them "honest conservatives" and work with them on limiting the powers of the federal government and most recently on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Mostly however the Right believe that "aliens" have no civil rights and that the war on terror takes priority over civil rights, which is not very different from Thatcherism. There is also a widespread belief in the New World Order conspiracy theory, which is similar to English paranoia following the Gunpowder Plot. Most Americans are unaware that their government is protectionist, and see subsidies for corn, energy and armaments as protecting the family farm, and helping the "middle class" and promoting national security. There are of course a few disruptive editors here that promote these views merely to be disruptive. One of the most prolific was User:RJII who has created numerous accounts and explains his reasoning here. At Talk:Fascism/Archive 34 a suspected sock of his, User:Immoral moralist, revisited the fascism is on the left theory. TFD (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Misunderstanding... sorry
Daniel so sorry for misunderstanding. I don't have intention to Spam around or to remove something at Wiki for promoting Forum. I was only try to add some interesting information's and remove one my outdated post.
Because of that I'm registered, it'll be logical to spam anonymous here...
One more time sorry for misunderstanding and my bad English.
Hey. About the Image its just small and not attractive or interesting at all and most importantly is used in other pages like Mount Judi .. you can check it out .. Its not attractive to keep a small fuzzy image in two articles why not change one .. The one I kept was in the Russian Wikipedia translation i think Moodswingster (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually like the old image but that is not the main point. The point is that an image needs to illustrate the subject of the content it is placed with. Its attractiveness is a very secondary concern. Take the Christian image a bit further down on the page. That is not particularly attractive but it is very appropriate because it is a very early Christian depiction with clear Christian connotations. I can't see any reason why the image should be disfavoured here just because it is used on other articles.
I see two reasons why the old image is preferable:
It comes from an unequivocally Jewish source so it is demonstrably relevant to the section it illustrates. I did a quick check on the image you used and could not see anything tying the artist or the image to Judaism. As I say, it was only a quick check so maybe I missed something.
It is quite simple so it scales down well when seen in the article. Although not scanned at a very high resolution, it is not fuzzy as far as I can see. The trouble with large, elaborate, detailed history paintings, like the one you suggest, is that they tend to become indistinct when scaled down to thumbnail size, as used in the article. The reader has to click on them to see what is going on clearly. They may be great paintings but can make for quite poor illustrations. I think you recognise this issue because you made the image wider than the others in the article. That is something we should try to avoid, if we can, because it eats into the space available for text.
Why do you think that it is a problem that this one is in other articles? I really can't see any problem with this. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Its this ****ing random server lag. It is confusing Twinkle into blanking the articles as I tag them. I have restored the content and reported the problem at the Village Pump. Regards. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, My name is Philip Warner. Sir Mark Wienberg, who worked with Professor Jim Gower in creating the shape of the Financials Services Act in the early 80's, wrote to me in the early 90's saying "I can understand what you trying to say. I just hope others can too" He then set about depolarising the sales system that he had put together. Resulting in depolarisation. Sir Mark had been the Chairman of MIBOC the Marketing of Investment Boards Organising Committee and was largely responsible for putting polarisation on the map in the first place. My view is not cynical. It is steeped in philosophy and requires depth of thought. I was an IFA in the 80's and often wrote for Financial Times Business Information. I quit the industry altogether after putting forward the philosophy that undermined the system. These days I am a happy .com multimillionaire. You can't hold a good man down as they say. Regards Phil Warner 62.56.106.232 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in the rights or wrongs of the matter. The point is that Wikipedia is not for publishing your own opinions even if they are valid. Please do not keep adding your own opinions. You will only get yourself blocked from editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
PRODding
Hi, thanks for your efforts, but please be careful not to inadvertently bit newcomers with your deletion tagging- if the content is not blatantly inappropriate, there's usually no harm in leaving it for a few hours to see what, if anything, the author does with it before sticking a PROD tag on it, which may frighten them off. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We can't reference articles to stuff on YouTube. If you can find material in reliable sources then please use that as references. That way anything you add can be checked and things will not be removed if they check out OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Article Question, a few seconds to spare?
Hi Daniel, was wondering if you could lend a third opinion to the inclusion of content Here (again I know). Just a third opinion on the inclusion of arguably notable enough material. Thanks Monkeymanman (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
tb
Hello, DanielRigal. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Do you mean a new article? If so, you can make a draft of it in your own user space and edit it there until you are ready to publish it. This is a good idea if you are worried that your very first draft of an article might be so basic that it gets speedily deleted. You can also ask somebody else to review the article, or help you edit it, while it is in your user space.
For an existing article it is not so easy. Multiple edits are not normally a bad thing but occasionally I have found it helpful to take a copy of a section I was working on into my user space so I can experiment and try to get it right there. The risk is that somebody else might edit the real version in the meantime and it might be difficult to sort everything out. I don't do this often. Generally, the only time I do it is when I want to work on railway diagrams or very complex tables, which can look really bad if there is even a minor mistake. For everything else, I just make multiple edits.
Don't forget that you can preview your edits before saving them, which is a particularly good idea when working with images and tables, or just to make sure that the wiki markups do what you expected.
Ah. Yes. I forgot about that article. The problem there was one of conflict of interest. You should try to avoid writing about your own products. Even if you try really hard to stick to the Wikipedia rules on neutrality it is very hard to write about your own thing in a neutral way. The other problem was notability. Is the software really notable? What you would need to do is show that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. For software, this means things like professional reviews and other non-trivial coverage in the IT press, academic papers, reports by notable analysts, that sort of thing. It has to go beyond listings and product descriptions on download sites. If the product is not notable (by our rules) then there is no way to get it into Wikipedia. We have a policy that Wikipedia is not a directory so we can't list all software. It isn't a matter of how well you write the article or how good the product is. I did a quick Google and it doesn't look good for Bauk. Of course the product could become more notable as time goes on.
I had a look at the Bauk website and the main claim is that it is the fastest web server available. This is something that should really interest the IT press, although I notice a few other web servers also make the same claim. If you can get the IT press to conduct and publish independent benchmarks and generally take notice of the product then that would be something that could be used to reference an article. My advice is to give up on the Wikipedia article, at least for now, and try to get the attention of some IT journalists.
As for the e-mail, there is an e-mail option but I very much prefer to do all Wikipedia discussion here. It keeps everything in the open. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, Can you anyway provide your email for contact,
maybe you can provide information ie. that is not available
in your reply.
Baukadm (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
sikh teaching, edit
Daniel, This article is not up to any standard. Lot of the information is not accurately presented. Is verbose encyclopedic ?? Also what is the deal on references, when references are origional opinions of other people anyway.
You should let my version stand and let the people/sikhs decide if it fits their understanding of the religion. Please revert it back. However I was anyway planning to make it "encyclopedic" but you removed it.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.137.229 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What you changed was a huge section. Changes like that require discussion. The original content seemed OK to me although I am not an expert on the subject.
If you think that you can make your version encyclopaedic and support it with reliable references then the best thing to discuss it on Talk:Sikh. Maybe do is rough a rough draft of it in your user space. See if you can get everybody to agree that your version is correct and better explained than the old one. People will probably suggest improvements but if you can get to a point where almost everybody is reasonably happy with your version then you can put it in the article. That said, you might find it easier just to try improving and referencing what is already there.
BTW, your IP address has changed since you made the original edit. If that is going to happen regularly then people will find it hard to keep track of who they are talking to. It would be a good idea to register yourself a user account on Wikipedia. You can use your real name or something else. That way people will be able to know that you are the same person whatever your IP address is and also you will get a talk page and watchlist of your own, which is very useful.
Hi Daniel. I am just about at the end of my patience with AzureFury. I am about to give him a third notice to restore the lede written by the editors who voted to keep the article. As I explained at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_ United_Nations#Lead_section, his lede is unacceptable because it is not a summary of Defamation of religions and the UN; AzureFury's lede is a shoddy summary of an editorial by Canada.com's Hui Min Neo combined with the opinions of Bennett Graham and AzureFury. If you prefer my lede, I request that you ask AzureFury to restore it. If you believe AzureFury's lede is tolerable, please tell me why. Thank you for defending the article. PYRRHON talk 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to take this to AfD. I don't see any chance in hell of it being deleted but you are perfectly entitled to try. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the contact.
Stumbeling at my first attempts on wiki
The current page on the Airmans Letter was entirely focussed on the film. Perhaps you are right about merging it with the existing entry
I have his CO's copies of uk and usa editions of the book with newspaper clippings and a note from the airman's mother, hence the photo's .
What do you suggest is the appropriate action ?
See if anybody says anything on the merge discussion. Try to reference your content to the books and newspaper clippings. The fact that they are probably not available on-line is not a problem (although it is good to link them if they are). Your content may or may not need to be moved to the other article but there is no harm in working on it in the meantime.
Try to get a short clear statement of why he is notable in the first sentence. That, and the fact that a merge is being considered, should be enough to avoid deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The Dumbing of America
Hi, I removed the speedy deletion from this recently-created article as it doesn't appear to meet A7: it asserts notability, stating that the website has conducted interviews with numerous notable artists, which is sufficient to pass the CSD. If you feel that the article may not meet the GNG, please take it to AfD; since the article's only just been created, it's possible that further sourcing will reveal that it is able to meet WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I just reverted a rather massive insertion of what looked like harrassing religious propaganda into your talk page since it appeared to be pure vandalism; let me know if I was incorrect to do so and I'll avoid doing so again next time. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem; your page is still watchlisted from when I left a message here before so if I see any more 5-digit edit sizes, I'll revert them. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hare Krishna
Why do you want to delete Hare Krishna portal??? Today on holy day of Ekadashi??? Usually only demons or big sinners do this... Are you one of them??? Actually delete atheism portal instead. Yes, do this... I can help you —Preceding unsigned comment added by HareKrishnaPortal (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Three important points for you:
Do not insult people on Wikipedia. Just because we do not agree that is no excuse to be rude. Being rude detracts from whatever point you are trying to make. Threatening to delete other stuff is a very bad idea. That can get you blocked.
Signing up for two different accounts is sockpuppetry and can get you blocked. If I see you using both accounts at the same time I will report you for this. If you are making a permanent change of username then I will let it pass.
We already have a portal for Hinduism and it is very good. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a separate portal for Hare Krishna.
What you should do is think about whether there is a really good reason to keep the portal which stands up under Wikipedia policies. If you think there is then make a short, polite statement on the deletion discussion page explaining your reasons as clearly as you can. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. I see you just got yourself blocked. I did try to warn you that would happen if you threatened to delete other stuff. Still, it is only for 31 hours. Please take the time to relax and come back with a more constructive attitude. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't me! It was some other angry person, probably the author of the portal. I will refactor it to make that clear. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
And it got added again... I have refactored it this time to make it clear who really wrote it and collapsed it as it is so long and incoherent. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: I am actually quite enjoying this. I have never had to deal with an angry, Hare Krishna schismatic before. Normally they are such amiable and placid people. I am sure this is bad Karma all round but I don't care. I am probably scheduled for reincarnation as a slug anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article macaroni casserole you were right, it is minced meat. Thank you for changing it and thank you for writing it in a nice way (sometimes some Wikipedians can be quite nasty) :-) Leopea (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello DanielRigal, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ezida TV, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm finding plenty of non-wiki references to Ezida TV and relationship to Kurdistan TV - redirect appears to make sense ATM. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. Sorry. When dealing with BarzanPDK18's sockpuppets I tend not to check the merits of the individual edits in much detail. He does like to vandalise redirects but if this one was unexpectedly valid then I am happy to let it stand. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a contributor to the New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company page, and noticed that you had placed several tags on the page using "Friendly." These tags included the fact that it needed more sources and notability, the fact that it read like an advertisement, and that there was suspicion of a conflict of interest. Several changes have been made since the page was fist created. Can you take a look at it again, and notify me if any more changes need to be made for those tags to taken down? Any thoughts and concerns would be appreciated.
I will try to look at this in a bit. In the meantime, anybody else can take the tags off if they agree that the issues are fixed. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a list of the subpages associated with this portal to the deletion discussion. I suppose others should comment on whether they think those should be deleted as well. P. D. CookTalk to me!13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This IP is the third that has a similar pattern of vandalism. The previous two are 80.42.235.17 and 80.42.227.142, both of which were blocked at one point. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have undone your edit of redirecting it to Hindu units of measurement as the current article covers much more than Hindu units of measurement. It also wrongly claims the Vedas elaborate on details of Hindu cosmology like the mention of the lokas such Patala, which are not found in the Vedas, but in the later Puranas. I am not sure from where "Number of species of birds" etc. is derived.--RedtigerxyzTalk12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I don't have a strong opinion about the best way to handle it, so long as we don't let remain as an unreferenced article with errors in. I am not sure that deletion is better than a redirect to an article that covers at least part of the subject. Are you planning to clean it up and deprod it, or do you think it really should be deleted? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not planning to clean up it. The title has no context and limit. The Vedas have numerous figures. "List of numbers in Vedas" does not only cover Hindu units of measurement, so a redirect is not proper IMO. Should a AfD be initiated? What you you think? --RedtigerxyzTalk10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah. So it is more flawed than I realised. That makes sense to me. There is no need to start an AfD unless the PROD doesn't stick. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Amotz Shemi
Material was removed because it was unsourced or poorly sourced, if you add material back to that article ensure that it is based on a Reliable source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I will try to do that. Where I can't I will tag it as CN. What we can't do is gut all the claims of notability out of an article and then delete it for not having any claims of notability in it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You can remove anything unreferenced after the AfD is over, if it survives. For now it has to stay. I will look into referencing the claims but I already noticed that the list of academic papers was removed despite being referenced, which was a bit unfair.
The article is almost certainly going to be deleted anyway but I think we do have to be fair and delete things only for fair reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
For now it has to stay - no it doesn't. Core policy is that unsourced material can be removed at any time. Do not readded unless you have RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I am looking into it right now. If you, as nominator in the AfD, continue to remove content I will have no choice but to change my vote to "strong and speedy keep". --DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
On the basis that I am removing unsourced material from a BLP? Please make sure you put that in your keep rationale, that you are attempting to blackmail me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What keep rationale? I didn't vote keep. I voted weak delete. I am merely defending the integrity of the AfD process.
Do whatever you think is right. If you really think it right to remove significant content from an article while you, yourself, have put an AfD on it then go ahead. Of course you should expect to be called out on it. It is completely contrary to the spirit of AfD to do something like that. The point of an AfD is that the voters get to read the content and decide on it themselves. It would invalidate the AfD process and of course I would call for it to be ended as a speedy keep, without prejudice to the AfD being restarted again fairly. No blackmail. No hidden agendas. No secret messages. Just that.
Anyway, the article is fully referenced and verifiable now so I hope the issue is moot. Everything in the deleted content was easily verifiable apart from the bit about the father being an artist, and I have no reason to believe that was untrue either. The article can now sail to deletion due to lack of notability of the subject and, by doing it fairly, there will be no risk of an unedifying spectacle at Deletion Review.
Hi, regarding page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Hanley Please give me chance to finish the page, I was editing it to put references in and you made changes before I got chance to save the page creating an edit conflict.. I am totally new to Wikipedia so it is taking me a little time to get the page correctly formatted - Thanks BJM76 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and help! I will try and make the required format changes over the next day or so, best wishes BJM76 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Fish Fingers
Daniel,
Please can you tell me why you have such an aversion to the suggested improvements on the fish fingers page?
If I had a pound every time someone from Grimsby claimed that they hail form the birthplace of the fish finger I would be a very wealthy man.
I think highlighting the widespread misunderstanding can only add to the accuracy and interest of the page.
It has nothing to do with local rivaly. I think that accuracy is paramount however you seem to be operating a questionable degree of censorship that worries me.
If I were researching fish fingers I would want to know about the common misconception. Your refusal to add it merely promotes ignorance where processed fish is concerned.
I urge you to reconsider your decision.
Mr Fish Oracle
Birthplace of the fishfinger
Daniel
Many thanks for your informative and generally well researched piece on fishfingers.
Unfortunately i feel you are factually inaccurate on their true origin. Along with frozen prawns and scampi the birthplace of the popular fish based snack is Great Grimsby in North East England.
Whilst this may seem a trivial matter to many, my grandfather was responsible for this pioneering work in food processing and therefore your factual inaccuracies are a cause for significant upset for my family. I look forward to an amended piece.
Concur with your assessment; I've soft-blocked the Ip for three months, and will follow up with an e-mail to the school. That was a little over the line from 'school boy nonsense'. Kuru(talk)20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you in the midst of new page patrolling but I see from your homepage that you live in Guildford and are interested in trains.
I was wondering if there's any way to get a cheap ticket between London and Guildford on SWT (or anyone else for that matter)? Whenever I search, the return fare seems to come in at £13 or more which seems pretty steep for what is not a very long journey. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There are no cheap advance fares as it is not a long enough distance. You can get cheaper day returns by buying restricted off-peak or super-off-peak tickets. If you have a Railcard that might help on weekends but probably not much on weekdays as the minimum fare for Railcards is so high. If you have a TfL Travelcard then only buy a ticket up to the zone boundary that is the edge of your Travelcard zones. If you don't have a Travelcard and you need to use additional services in London then it is cheaper to get a one day Travelcard as part of the ticket than to buy one separately in London. That said, sometimes it is even cheaper not to bother and use Oyster PAYG instead. I think that is as good as it gets. There are no magic cheap tickets between Guildford and London. It really is an expensive service. On the plus side it is good quality. Some other rail companies charge similar money and give worse services in return. If you are really strapped for cash then there is a National Express coach service which is only very slightly cheaper and that is slower, infrequent and generally more hassle as it only serves a bus stop near Tesco in Park Barn. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the information Daniel :-) I find it odd that you can book a ticket on www.megatrain.com that will take you all the way to Portsmouth on SWT for as little as £1, on a service which actually stops at Guildford. I guess buying the Portsmouth ticket and only using it as far as Guildford would not be allowed in either direction? — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It almost certainly wouldn't get you through the ticket barriers. You could ask Megatrain about this. If they do say yes then I would advise to get it in writing, so you can show the staff at Guildford if they query it, but I very much doubt that they will say yes.
I agree that it is very odd. The whole way the National Rail system works is odd and makes life more difficult and expensive than it needs to be. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right - they call that "shorting" or something. I'm sure it should be against my rights to prevent me from leaving the train if I so desire, but who knows! Incidentally there was a story about a similar issue in this morning's Metro: [10]. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of Nikki Haley from the list of notable Sikhs at the Sikh article, I understand your reluctance to allow a professed convert to Methodism to remain in a list of Sikhs, but I thought I'd explain why I thought Haley qualified as a notable entry in this list. However, I won't add her name back to the list myself; I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's appropriate.
According to her article, Haley was born and raised as a Sikh; she has stated that she converted to Methodism shortly before marrying, but she still attends both Sikh and Methodist services. Her unique religious background (unique among American politicians, I mean) may well be one of the most remarkable aspects of her career, given the bias and hostility in U.S. politics against politicians with non-Christian backgrounds. She is certainly notable from the perspective of Sikh culture: her political career may represent one of the greatest inroads Sikhism has made into U.S. politics thus far. Which doesn't say much for tolerance in U.S. politics, but my point is that it makes her Sikh background rather noteworthy from a Sikh perspective.
My feeling is that she doesn't belong on the list but that she, and her connection to Sikhism, may be worth covering elsewhere in the article. That said, I can see why some people would want to include her in the list. It is a bit like the old issue of "Who is a Jew?", many people who have other religions, or no religion, are sometimes considered Jews although, from a religious perspective, this is ridiculous. I think the safest way forward is to seek a consensus on the talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Its great to know that somebody read it and approved of it even if it is unlikely to get through to the person it was replying to. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, user user:Dharani Maran is continuously removing the originial research tag from the Paravar page whereas there are many doubtful claims, misinterpretation of sources... Claims such as Kshatriya, Pandya royal lineage are pure POV. Many sources have been provided in the discussion page concerning the origins of the Paravar caste. None of them I have been taken into account. This user is also threatening other editors (see talk page)who do not share his POV. Please check and do something. Thank you.83.202.208.125 (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
He has been on final warning for 4 days. I am not actually an admin, so I can't do anything directly, but I will have a look at it his behaviour since then and if I think it is bad enough I will report it to AIV as vandalism after final warning. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. This is not as clearcut as I expected.
His content edits to the article seem suspicious but I do not know enough about the subject to know how bad they are. AIV is not for content disputes. His talk page edits are adversarial and uncivil but I didn't see him actually being threatening. Please point me at a specific phrase you think is threatening if you think I missed it in all the verbiage. That leaves the tag removal. Well, "cleanup" sure as hell is still valid. I would be inclined to add tags for "tone", "confusing" and "wikify". Whether or not his edits make the article worse they certainly don't fix these issues, which were a problem before he started. I find the article very hard to make sense of. I can't tell if it is POV overall but there are POV words in there. I saw Muslims being described as arrogant for example. Quite a lot of significant claims are not supported by footnotes.
I am going to tag it again with some new tags. I will see how he approaches this. If he shows signs of engaging constructively and collaboratively then we can work with him but if he shows signs of aggressively trying to WP:OWN the article then we can escalate it from there. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You can find his agressive stance in the talk page, chapter "Regarding protection", sept 15: "Come and speak (argue) with your real name and caste name.Dont be cowardice as a bitch to make sound with out expressing your identity.Come with your F**king proofs.".
I have provided many refs concerning this caste: a community involved in fishing activities. He has rejected them... The refs provided for their arisotcratic/kshatriya/pandyan royal lineage are not reliable. Most of them do not contain what is claimed~on the contrary: Thurston tells that they are a fishing community and only that they 'claim' to be Kshatriyas and Pandyan royal lineage, other refs provided by him tell the contrary of what is mentioned in the article. This is clear Original research and POV writing.83.202.208.125 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please readd the tags removed by this user. He has no right to remove these tags whereas his claims of Aristocratic/Kshatriya/ Pandya royal lineage are not sourced by proper refs. For ex, have a look on the ref 'Caste and tribes of southern India', the author, Edgar Thruston, never tell that the Paravars are Kshatriyas or from Pandya lineage but only that they claim these... This is clearly manipulation, original research!... Please readd the tags and ask for page complete protection. Thank you.83.202.208.125 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't. You see, we have a policy that Wikipedia is only for real stuff. This is important so that people can trust and rely on what they read in Wikipedia. If you want to make your own stuff up then there are lots of other places you can go. Please stop adding made up stuff to Wikipedia. You will only get blocked if you keep going. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the other two. I am hoping that it was just a kid who got upset and who will now give up now that he sees that this doesn't do any good. I will report any further occurrences. Regards. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Renegade Theatre Experiment
you guys are weirdly quick -- and don't look at the talkback for specific pages. The page was deleted by HJ WHILE I was correcting it, so the hangon tag was for THAT page. If you guys could coordinate, maybe my hour of unsaved work about a great theatre company wouldn't be pulled in the 5 minutes between getting the flag notice and it getting pulled. Sheesh
--Kevjkelly (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The need for disambiguation was not so much to do with trains or states that might have trains but to do with South West. There was a discussion on the use of the name South East Region. The end result was that it need to be renamed to South-East Region, Ireland. The ruling was that countries ought to be separated by comma while other entities ought to be separated by parentheses. Since "Train" is integral to the name of the company, then the name "South East (trains)" would be silly. Nevertheless, the title is too generic not to have a country delimiter. Who knows, another country might pop up some day with their own South East trains. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought our policy was to only disambiguate when the need arose. I can see that other countries might choose to create entities called South West Trains but I don't think any exist at the moment. If there is only one company called South West Trains then why disambiguate it? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The main difference is that most of the UK does not have middle schools so high schools cover ages 11-16 or 11-18. The High school article covers the national differences between high schools. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 'Danielle LoPresti and The Masses' article
Hello, can you please advise on how this article should be written so as not to sound like an advertisement? Can you specify which parts of it are coming across to you as such? Please help, thank you! Leeshsters (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to say this once, and clearly, since you appear to be a little hard of thinking.
Hun is not sectarian.
It is a term that refers to a Rangers fan, no matter what religion they may be. Unless 'Rangers Fan' has become a religion in recent days, then to suggest that Hun is sectarian is flat-out wrong. I will continue to edit the page to reflect this, because IT IS THE TRUTH. If you continue to mark such edits as 'vandalism', I will be left with no option but report you to your superiors. And if you genuinely believe that 'hun' is sectarian, might I suggest doing those of us with brains a favour and drinking a nice glass of bleach?
If you want to draw attention to yourself by making a big fuss then feel free. Seeing as you are engaged in vandalism and personal attacks, all it will do is get you blocked a bit faster.
The fact that "hun" is recognised as a sectarian insult is referenced in the linked article. That trumps whatever opinions you may personally have. This includes opinions in capital letters. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not suing you for damages. Besides, there is no point getting personal about this. If the facts are demonstrably against you, which they are, then you will find multiple editors will revert your edits. I am only one of several people to revert changes to that particular entry. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
chatteris tang soo do
I question your action in removing reference to Chatteris tang soo do club. Surely any club that has been in existance for over 20 years deserves some notoriety?
Actually, probably not, although there are exceptions. Lots of things have been around for 20 years or so but are not notable. We don't normally mention things like local golf clubs or bowls clubs. The notability criteria is here. If the organisation has a significant following in the local press equivalent to a local football or rugby team that gets regular press coverage then that is OK. If you think that is the case then put the text back with a reference to some coverage in a local newspaper or a similar, independent reliable source. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I like your approach to editing as evidenced by your user page and your edit summary when reverting vandalism at Eugenics. I'll just go ahead and call it vandalism, though I admire your willingness to think it may have been a mistake. If you check the IP's history of contributions, you'll find s/he has only vandalized. I don't know how to report her/him, but am letting you know.
The reason I like to see a few--not dozens!--of user boxes is because it helps me see the editor as a real live person, and helps me understand where they're coming from. I'm not suggesting you add any; your explanation as to why you don't fills that need. But then, when people stack 'em to the ceiling, that says something about them, too! I usually look at user pages before engaging with an editor. Best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My userpage
Response to your comment on my talk page. Also how do I view my userpage's deleted history? I'd prefer to get my userboxes back and not have to keep trying to find them on the userbox page. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You have to ask an administrator for help with that. Use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page and that will get somebody's attention. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay
Okay, okay, okay, okay! Maybe Miss Princess is NOT real, maybe she IS fake! Maybe stupid people TRICKED me, maybe that page was a hoax! Maybe that drawing wasn't Adam's! Maybe it was just a REALLY good immitation, or possibly even a recolor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.139.215 (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
[User_talk:Kipala]
Would you mind telling me what business you have removing content from my personal user page? Answer over there. Kipala (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, all I did was remove some cryptic spam from his User Talk page. I have restored the spam and explained my actions other there. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You said "I don't think they serve an essential purpose of identification as the thing they identify is listed alongside in word, but maybe they do have value as a secondary form of identification. I can see this one both ways. I would like to keep them but they are not essential." What did you mean by this? DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I mean that we can tell what is being identified without the icons but that the icons give a quick indication at a glance. The icons are neither necessary nor are the gratuitous decoration. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm unsure what you meant by me doubling the size of False Prophet or pasting more than I meant to, I only added some references from the Quran as support and made it more concise to read.
Ah. Then it was a mistake.
At some point you must have accidentally pasted a second copy of a large chunk of the article into it. Don't worry. Somebody has already tidied it up. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanielRigal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
