User talk:Daniel Olsen

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Talk:New Creation Church (Singapore), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Daniel Olsen 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel Olsen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask me, check the help pages, or add {{helpme}} to this page, and someone'll be along shortly.

Happy editing! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

nicole richie

Daniel Olsen, Template:Agf1 HabaneroMan 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please give a valid reason in the edit summary or talk page blah blah blah"

I DID give a reason for removing that "Her Dogs" section, on the talk page! The section was irrelevant crap that only fans would care about. Not only that, but it read more like The Simple Life (tv show) trivia than Nicole Richie "trivia" and again, I mentioned that on the talk page. But that's fine, keep the stupid dog section. I don't care if it stays, I was just trying to make the page look less like a fanboi article but whatev.

_____

Dude, that _______ guy is a fag. Bad luck about them deleting ur page, that would have taken ages to make. Edit: ____ made me remove his name. damn. --Javsav 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Name change of article

Hi Daniel, I suggest changing the name of 100 greatest guitar solos to Guitar World's 100 top solos. Much less POV. Comments? Moriori 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• seems perfectly fine to me Daniel Olsen 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

not how it's done, my man

i noticed on Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos you committed two rather major wikipedia faux pas' - you left a page half finished, and you directly addressed the reader as yourself. for the former, a common convention for articles one is working on is to create a user subpage for it. you create on by making a (username)/(subject) article. in your case, this could be User:Daniel Olsen/Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos. for example, take a look at mine (but don't edit it, please). i tend to just use it for infoboxes, and getting the hang of formatting, etc. also, one should discuss any changes on the discussion page, not the page itself. you're pretty new here, so don't sweat it too much. comment me if you need some help, or, of course, just take a look at the wikipedia policies and guidelines Mysekurity put at the top of your page. happy editing! :) Joeyramoney 02:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

what i meant was that you were discussing the article on the page itself, rather than the discussion page. Joeyramoney 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we have permission to use this Guitar World material?

Do we? Moriori 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's from an old issue, so it's not for sale anymore, and I don't this will take away from the success of Guitar World in any way. I'd say it's fair use in one sort or another. Daniel Olsen 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. If it was copyrighted when published it is still copyrighted and we can't claim fair use. We would need to seek permission to use it, or drop it. No? Moriori 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, can we just put quotes around the whole thing instead? It seems they don't mind people copying the list, as about.com has the same info, and that's actually where i got the info from... How would we go about obtaining permission? --Daniel Olsen 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's a copyvio from about.com as well! Check their website and you will see "©2006 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.". You could e-mail Guitar World directly and ask them for permission to use it. Moriori 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I have placed the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so that we can get the opinion of others regarding this. Moriori 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed Guitar world, hopefully someone will get back to me about permission --Daniel Olsen 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, copyvio is only part of the problem. Have you visited the entry for Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion yet? If not, you need to give your opinion fairly quickly. Moriori 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop recreating the article. It was decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos that we cannot keep this article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambig pages

Great work on the disambig pages. One note: When you finish a set of links and copy it to to the Done list, you should then delete it from the "To Do" list. See the history file for many examples of this. Simon12 03:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Daniel Olsen! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Cheers for that...! Budgiekiller 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All in a day's work. --Daniel Olsen 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help protect this article from unfair deletionists?

Hi Daniel! I found you through Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I was hoping if you can lend me a helping hand with International Institute of Management article. On August 10 an unknown person marked it for deletion. Then a group of 4 deletionists gave a delete vote claiming non-notability. Inspite of the fact that nn is not an official reason for deletion, I provided a clear evidence of notability and verifiable references and won a stong keep vote from Ephilei (another inclusionist). However, my concern is that we are only 3 votes against 6 votes . Therefore, I kindly ask you to check the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management (if it is too long you can check keep-comments). I’m not asking for anything more than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar articles. Every keep vote counts, please help! Miro.gal

It is against the rules to seek votes like the one above. You wrote, "Keep and Clean Up. At the most basic level, this is not just a website, and thus the nomination has no basis. Whether this is a research institute, school, or whatever the hell else it may be, it deserves to have an article here." Shouldn't you know WHAT IT IS in order to decide IF IT IS NOTABLE? Please consider withdrawing your solicited vote by this user who's first ever edit was a keep vote on the AfD. Nickieee 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:My userpage

No problem :D °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:IIM

Thanks very much for the message.

I'm not really an inclusionist or a deletionist (maybe I lean toward deletionism), but I agree with you that some editors don't consider things like this carefully. If someone took the time to register and create an article, they deserve to know why another someone believes it should be deleted/edited/split/merged/whatever. If someone else points out new evidence, that evidence should be weighed and considered.

I know the IIM people aren't experienced editors and that's the main reason why I laid out my process - I wanted to assure them that I do take it seriously and that I gave it a great deal of thought. That's all I can do. Thanks again - I appreciate your kindness! Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: IIM

Daniel, I was discourages by such unreasonable and unethical deletionists, but thanks to your support and others', I'm regaining faith in Wiki . Miro.gal

How strange...

I know somebody called Daniel Olsen, but he's not you! :) --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking dolphin

Apparently someone took offence at your ability to communicate (albeit on a basic level) with dolphins. I reverted it. Clearly I'm not busy enough! Budgiekiller 08:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I think you are being just a little unfair here. You say that it is "not my place" to modify your userpage, yet you take it upon yourself to modify other pages on Wikipedia without regard to the integrity of the content. However, if you claim to be willing to value the integrity of information presented on this website then you will uphold it on your own userpage. Please remove the dolphins. Delfinophile 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, at your request I will take my argument to your talk page, for now. As for your claim that it is "not my place" to modify your userpage, I refer you to WP:WWN: "Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours." Now that I've established that your user page does not belong to you, I want to reiterate that I take offensive to your claim that you speak Dolphin. It simply isn't true, nor is it verifiable. More importantly, it is inappropriate for your userpage: it is not relevant. I also refer you to WP:USERPAGE: "If you have material...that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal website." You don't speak dolphin. If you want to say that you do, put it on your MySpace page, not here. Reading further, you will learn that inappropriate content is considered to be "other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'." You have that there because you get a kick out of it, not because it is relevant to Wikipedia's goals. If you still somehow feel that this should stay, then you ought to continue reading because the article goes on to say, "material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed." Who may remove it exactly? Well, as you said yourself, it is often best to let the user make the change himself, but as you have now been made aware, "pages in user space still do belong to the community...other users may edit pages in your user space." I have the right to change that content, but I am asking you to please change it yourself. I do apologize for not having brought this issue up here in the first place. However, your duty is clear: If another user such as myself "lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so". I await your response. Delfinophile 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We can all communicate with dolphins. I have, in New Zealand, so I think you need to relax a bit about it. Daniel, you are not alone...! Budgiekiller 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)