A barnstar for you! 
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|For your tireless actions against combatting vandalism to Diary of a Wimpy Kid articles. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 14:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)|
Gilbert Prousch 
Sorry Daniel, but original research is something else... There are also lots of reliable sources for Prousch (apart from the documenta research database I referenced in the article, Google Books, Google Scholar), so there is literally no justification for not citing this different spelling at all. Apart from the fact that I know that Prousch is correct, I didn't even erase the "wrong" form Proesch, since (you are right in this case) there are heaps of good sources for that spelling. But as I said, there are good sources for both forms, so I struggle to understand why you don't want to include Prousch. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lets keep discussion of this on the article's talk page. That way, it is easier for other people to join in with their opinions. Anyway, I think we are getting to a version we can both live with now. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
For someone so concerned about the correct information, relevance, and referenced material you have a horrid way of going about your reversion explanations. Using words such as "crap", "oy vey", "nobody cares" or impertinent British slang isn't useful or very constructive to the editor whose post is being reverted even if their edit was "crap". No need to reply. DiefendorfA (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your comment refers to edit summaries not to actual content, so I think your section heading is misleading. I never insult editors in edit summaries, or elsewhere, but I have no problem describing bad content as what it is, bad content, or to use a nice short phrase to describe content that really is entirely void of value, crap. I see no reason not to express mild exasperation when we repeatedly have to deal with the same old bad edits time and time again. If somebody posts some self-aggrandising crap then I think removing it with a comment saying that nobody cares is both accurate and appropriate. Formal language is required in articles but I don't see how an encyclopaedia that has an almost semi-official policy on Complete Bollocks can object to a a bit of British slang in edit summaries or on talk pages. I must say that I am at a loss to understand what your objection is. Could it be that I have somehow upset you in some other way? If so, I apologise but I really have no idea how. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Peter Cundill entry on Value Investing 
In response to your Revert comment "If he has no article then he doesn't belong here", I've created the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peter_Cundill and it is awaiting review and approval. There is an existing article, Cundill Prize that also references to Peter Cundill. I guess I should have waited for the article to be approved before editing Value Investing to link it. --Peculiar Investor (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it would have been better to have waited but its nothing to worry about. If the article gets approved you can put it back. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Birthdates for fictional characters 
- Oh, and what was that? Does it meed the criteria for reliable sources? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I went on Google, and I typed in "What is Patrick Star's Birthday?" I clicked this page, and it showed Patrick's birthday. When you look Patrick's birthday up on Google, there will be lots of results incidcating he was born on Feburary 26, 1986. --ChipsyPopz1 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how we do things. You would need to check whether the sources are reliable and then reference them in the article. Unfortunately you can find a lot of rubbish if you just search the internet and believe the first thing you find.
- Yahoo Answers is one to be very wary of. A lot of its answers are complete rubbish. Often it is just people who don't know the answer making up answers to the questions. There is no way to check who the people answering are and whether they really know anything at all. In this case, at least the answer is referenced back to a Spongebob wiki but the links are dead and it is not considered reliable anyway.
- Anyway, fictional characters do not have birth dates because they are not real. Even if they have an official fictional birth date, these can not be used in an article in the same way as the birth date of a real person. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Birthdates for fictional characters 
Sorry, but you could have left a more friendly warning. I was just test editing, and I didn't know you weren't supposed to put a fictional character's birthdate next to their name. Besides, on SpongePedia you can find out very cleary that Patrick's birthday is Feburary 26th, 1986. Yahoo Answers wasn't my only source.--ChipsyPopz1 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- You might be right about my tone and I apologise for that. The problem is that we have had people putting those dodgy dates in before, over and over again, and they wouldn't listen to explanation of why it was wrong. As this happens quite a lot it looked like you were just the same person doing it again. If I was wrong about that I am very sorry. Normally I am pretty good at knowing the difference between people who are messing about and people who just made a mistake but may have got it wrong this time.
- Anyway, I have taken the warning off your talk page and put a much nicer welcome message on instead. That has lots of helpful links and I hope you find it useful. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for Comment on the Berlin page 
Hi - since you edited the Berlin page within the last couple months, I'm writing to ask if you'd like to weigh in on a current content dispute that has resulted in a request for comment. The issue, simply, is whether the Berlin article should include an image of the "Buddy Bears" or not. Thanks for your time, Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Vintage TV spam 
I noticed that one of the pages on my watchlist had been edited to include mention of the subject's appearance on a Vintage TV show. I edited this to tone down ridiculous language and have performed a number of similar edits on other pages as the editor (an anonymous user: 22.214.171.124) is going through page after page adding the same text re. appearances on Vintage TV. However, I see that in the past you have reverted such edits as unencyclopedic trivia. I don't really want to have to go through these pages one by one removing these passages. I wondered if there was a way for you as an admin to revert a series of edits across different pages, where the same criteria apply? Dubmill (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Update - another user has been dealing with this and all previous edits by 126.96.36.199 seem to have been undone. Dubmill (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I was filing the report on 188.8.131.52 when I saw your warning 
I was noticing the dispute on Katana and the talkpage blanking on the ip's talk, looked further and posted a report on 3rr noticeboard. Since you posted the warning, it looks like you were thinking the same thing. Though I'd give you the headsup. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Your advice on avoiding having edits deleted 
Daniel, as an experienced Deletionist, could you please point me to some advice about how to learn to avoid edit deletion. I can find much said about page deletion, but I work more on small updates than new pages. I'd like to learn which of my page edits got removed and why, so that I can make sure that any contributions I bother to make are worthwhile and survive. Any ideas how I can track which of my contributions were not up to scratch, or articles that discuss such things. Help gratefully appreciated. Artemgy (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably you have the setting which adds the articles you edit to your watchlist enabled? If not, you should probably enable that. The watchlist will give you a good idea of what edits are occurring after yours and you can see if your edits are being removed or corrected. If they are deleted then the article history will show you who removed them. They should also provide an edit summary explaining why. These summaries may be terse but they should be enough for you to have an idea what the problem was. (If not, you are perfectly within your rights to leave a note for the editor asking why they removed the edit as, apart from uncontroversial reversions of obvious vandalism, all edits should have a summary.) For example, if you see edit summaries saying that your edits are unreferenced then you know that you need to focus on referencing rather than there necessarily being a problem with the edit content itself. If you see your edits regularly getting changed in stylistic ways then that means that your edit is basically OK but that you need to adopt a style more in keeping with the manual of style. If there are more substantial problems then the edit summaries should tell you. Finally, it is worth becoming familiar with the "compare selected revisions" facility in the article history. This shows you two versions of the article side by side with the differences highlighted. Once you get used to using this it is easy to see exactly what parts are being changed. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This page was completely 'vandalised' by pro-turkish editors, claiming that kurds are a minority? with subheadings such as kurdish presence? This city is by majority Kurdish and part of Iraq so I do not understand why this Turk is claiming 3 million turkmen people live in this city. Utter nonsense and fictional. That is why i have removed these statements.
- Can you point to a previous version of the article that was more accurate?
- Can you point to independent references that support the population figures?
- Can you stop removing the notable Turkmen when you add in the notable Kurds?
- I suggest you make your case on the article's talk page. If you can show that the current content is inaccurate and that you are willing to work towards a text that is accurate and fair to all sides, including the Turkmen, then people will listen. If you just keep on reverting you will be tagged as a partisan vandal and nobody will take you seriously. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Line 56: 'The city consists of Turkmens, Arabs and SOME kurds and assyrians'. You might at least agree that the word some is inappropriate. Then comes the big fictions- 'the Turkmen population in the city is estimated to have increased from 3 000,000 to 3 500,000', now according to that same page, the population of the city was 850,787 people (2009), tell me how is that possible? (also the reference does not exist). Then it gets insulting, with the subheading 'Kurdish presence', imagine somebody editing a page about Guildford with the subheading 'English presence'. The text then explains wrongly that kurds have a SHORT history, and that a family moved in to the area (any rational person would know that there must be more history than that). Line 120- My favourite: 500,000 Turkmen displaced by Saddams regime (now ignoring the fact that most Turkmen were known to be pro-Saddam regime), the original text has been distorted as it actually says '120,000 kurds have been displaced as well as other ethnic minorities'. Line 129- 'They were supriesed by Kurdish politics The Kurds began to use the politic as Saddam Hussian in the city of Kirkuk'. That line does not make sense. As for the last section I included notable people that exist and there are pages for these people on Wikipedia. I did not remove any of the other links for people that do or have existed on planet earth.
I am new to editing on wikipedia so I am not very familar with how things work just yet and I do apologise for that, but what I am familiar with is Turkish chauvinism (Still denying the armenian genocide) and some peoples denial of Kurdish existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truths1234 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I have looked at it a bit more and I can see that some of this was very dubious. I have reverted to a previous version. That version was a bit too pro-Kurdish but I have done my best to straighten it out to be fair to everybody. It probably isn't perfect. What we really need is better references. When there are good references it is much easier to check which claims are incorrect. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, Daniel,
I've recently been editing a page called "RINJ," specifically the section titled, "Controversy" (I had originally tried inserting the relevant pieces of information into the main body of the article, but it was quickly deleted). Another user, who I suspect is aligned with the group RINJ and Wikipedia editor Micheal O'Brien, has been removing my edits and calling them vandalism. I admit I am a novice editor of Wikipedia, but I am not a novice user of encyclopedias or uneducated about the subject matter. Personally, I question the validity of the entry in the first place, as it seems very much to be a vanity page rather than an entry into an encyclopedia, but it was already challenged by someone else, I believe. Anyway, I was hoping you would take a look at RINJ and perhaps give me your input on the subject, and consider lending your support in ensuring the page is complete. Much appreciated.
Re:Day of the Dead 
- In English "dead" can be singular or plural. We talk about the "war dead" being all the people who die in a war, not just one of them. This is why it is important to use the official translations not rely on our own imperfect knowledge and assumptions. When I Googled I specifically looked at Google News, books and Scholar. I know a lot of rubbish gets indexed in Google but focussing on these more reliable subsets normally gives a good idea of where things really stand.
- Anyway, thanks for the reply. I was wondering whether the change was a mistake or deliberate vandalism so I am very glad to know that it was a genuine misunderstanding of the translation. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
proposed deletion 
Hi Daniel, Could you please review your proposal to delete page on Vincent Tully Construction. It has been revised! It is a legitimate company, sorry for the mis information. Jackal Jackal sinfart (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Steve Nguyen 
Hi Daniel, thank you for taking a look at the article I've created for one of my clients, Steve Nguyen. I've submitted it to the AFC section for review, but it's been taking a while due to the backlog. I've had the article reviewed by IRC users, and I just wanted to run everything by you and see if everything is alright in terms of clarity and citations. I've used secondary sources from articles and online publications that have been used by other approved articles, so as far as that's concerned... I haven't gotten any harsh criticisms or feedback. Madebyhumans (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I have a problem with people who make articles at the behest of the subjects. I see this an intrinsic conflict of interests. I am going to tag the article as COI rather than do anything too drastic. We will see how it pans out. If other editors work on the article and everybody is happy then it can be removed later. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I've never met the guy, but am basing most of the article I've written off of the people on Wikipedia that he is associated with. We'll see how it pans out. Madebyhumans (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Daniel! About the page "Dominic Ng"? I would like to know more about what you think. Thanks! 
Hi Daniel! I noticed that you put two alerts on the page "Dominic Ng." Could you please tell me more about why you think the post is too commercial? I would like to make it better for Wikipedia users. Thanks!
Also, you might have noticed that I cited 40 sources for this article. I'm so confused and would highly appreciate it if you can let me know what are the points that you do think need further sources to support.
I've removed the duplicate speedy notice if that's ok with you, I think it will just confuse the editor User_talk:Saif313. The editor received one about 20 minutes ago so they can get the information there. (You can restore it if you wish) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. That's no problem but I don't remember putting speedy on anything that already had speedy on it. It must have been an accident. I wonder why it didn't give a warning like it usually does. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What exactly did you mean by this.... 
on the talk page of One beat wonder? "I fear it may be indicative of how far "out there" this discussion has gone that the guy pleading for sanity is the one called BarkingFish. ;-)" FishBarking? 00:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just that it amuses me when I see somebody with a funny user name arguing sense with somebody silly. It is like when people get blocked by BongWarrior. It is amusing when the voice of reason, sense and authority is the guy with the funny name because it makes the person being silly seem even sillier; That is all. It wasn't meant to be a dig at you, quite the opposite. I am sorry if you thought otherwise. I can remove that part of the comment if you like. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
ARTICLE AMINUR RAHMAN,KHOSRU 
This article was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise.I requested him to reinstall the article again.He id that but now he has again deleted the main page and wrote a singel line at his own wish.Could you please suhhest me,what should I do? I wrote the article.Its about the youngest commander of Mongla Port operation in 71. The content of article is fully deleted by Futperf at Sunrise but without the content the subject is valuless. Please help me by giving advises. Regards, Frankfurt55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
On suggested deletion of PageRain 
Thankyou for reviewing my article about PageRain. I am the author of the article and the owner of PageRain, I do not try to hide this.
My reason for adding this page is that every competing CDN has their own page, all referenced from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network
Most of the pages describing CDNs referenced from this article are similar half-promotional articles, likely created by the owners of the CDNs. I believe the article about PageRain, outlining the focus and infrastructure is as relevant as any of the other articles.
I do not mind if the article needs editing and will do anyting needed to edit it to make it more objective than what I've already done. I ask that you please guide me in accomplishing this.
- Thanks for being upfront about this. I only did a quick Google on the subject but I found so little that I doubt it is going to be possible for the article to be kept. What you would need to find are independent, professional reviews, other independent press coverage and stuff like that. If you can find good coverage, and it doesn't have to be in English, then maybe the article can be saved. I must say that I think it is unlikely though. There are other places you could add entries for Pagerain though. Open Directory Project would be a good start. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Bethel Christian School (Ruston, Louisiana) 
Hi, Daniel! Bethel Christian School (Ruston, Louisiana) is actually a K-12 so it is counted as a high school.
I will keep any tags that are relevant, while notability concerns, I believe, would not be relevant. If you still wish to challenge the notability of the topic I will search for secondary sources that discuss this school WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article says pre-K12 which is what made me think it was not a high-school. If it is a high school, as well as other things, then that is definitely OK. Not being American, those grade numbers didn't jump out at me as indicating a secondary school but I now see that they do. Sorry for the confusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, it's fine! I checked your profile; it says you are in the UK so I can see why you were confused. In the United States educational system a PreK-12 always includes high school. "PreK-12" indicates a range of school years or grades. High school typically occupies grades 9 through 12 though it can be more (8-12) or less (10-12) - A PreK-12 institution covers all years of primary and secondary education. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Black Hebrew Israelites 
Could you send me the info that sounds argumentative so that I can correct the tone of the article. You have to understand that Black Hebrew Israelite is wholly redundant and used to divide us here in the United States and abroad and disregards Israelites from around the world. I have cited a source that you can read at your leisure and thank you for being diligent in keeping up with that page. Heritage is an important matter in our society and I want to work with you to keep the information historically accurate and politically correct. If you'd like to call me about this, feel free. 910.551.3386. My name is Nasiy Dabar Emiel Shakur.220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't about tone. By "argumentative" I mean that you are trying to advance an argument or viewpoint. You are saying that your view of the subject is correct and the more widely accepted views are wrong. That isn't going to work here. Three different people have undone your changes, not just me. No one Wikipedia editor is allowed to revert the same edits three times in one day, so I won't revert them again, but it is quite likely somebody else will.
- What I think you should do is go to the talk page of the article and leave a message saying why you have a problem with the article as it was. I am not an expert on the subject but some of the other editors are. I am sure they will be able to explain what is going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! 
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|For reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work Leeboy100 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)|