User talk:Dawnseeker2000

CubeSat

Hi. mc is the acronym of minor change and the equivalent here for what I usually use in the summary in other wikipedias. I'm basically new in editing pages in enwiki, so if this behaviour is not the standard or is prohibited, please, only tell me.

I changed the interwiki link because I was creating the article Xatcobeo, now I realize that I should create first the article and then change the interwiki... sorry for the error and thanks for show it to me. I'm open to any comments. Thanks again! --Xosema (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow you're fast - but what was wrong with my edit?

I made an edit to the Niburu page, correcting the dates from 2010 to 2012 and the date from May 2003 when it was infact April 2003.

EDIT: juveline vandalism considering my 8 year old brother was just on my computer for 5 minutes? I come back to do some research and I notice the dates are wrong, I look my confused, my little brother says 'edit' so I do and put in the correct dates that where originally put forward by ZetaTalk, problem being?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.250.125 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are juvenile vandalism that's why. Dawnseeker2000 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page contains all the information that was necessary for me to revert your edit. Please buy a dictionary. Dawnseeker2000 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AES Disambiguation

Thanks for your advice. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

About external links in House music

All the external links in this article have been removed and replaced by a link to dmoz. Other articles ( Dubstep, Techno ) have some interesting external links. Even if Wikipedia is not a directory link, some links might be seen as pedagogic. For example, the Gridface link i added ( http://www.gridface.com/tags/houseroots ) could be a good approach to understand the roots of House music. Maybe, a new section ( for example further readings ) could be created. --Groovenvibes (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That one looks fine. Feel free to re-add it. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Linksys WRT54G Series

Hi. A note about why I removed your addition to this article. These types of articles are always creeping towards being "how-to" articles. The editors that are making these changes frequently embed external links to their link of choice right in the article. I've been trying to help maintain this article as per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EL for some time. There are tons of other articles where these types of howto articles exist, but there just aren't enough editors to help maintain them properly. Dawnseeker2000 15:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading what you wrote, then the links to WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EL, I still fail to see why you removed the link. It was not turning the article into a "how-to". It was a link to a "how-to", and according to WP:EL, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail." Well, the link fits the description. I could understand if a how-to was posted inline in the article, but just an external link does not make an article creep towards being a "how-to".

rezin8 10:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezin8 (talk • contribs)

OK. Links aren't to be used in the body of the article. That's a good reason for not having the links present. Dawnseeker2000 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

'Vandalism'

How is referencing the HQ of a large corporation by linking to a random site useful at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.23.161 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been hosing the inter-language links. That's vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I like how you don't answer my question and instead bring up some other issue. Let me try again. How is linking to an unofficial site (Manta.com) useful? It is an obvious MFA site. I look forward to you accusing me of vandalism when I change the links to their official site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.23.161 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at your edits. Do you see how the inter-language links are toast? You may have a problem with your browser so please stop editing so that this does not continue. Dawnseeker2000 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hotel

Hi, just wanted to say thanks to you for the work you did uploading the audio sample to the article Heartbreak Hotel. I had never uploaded an audio file before and I messed up my attempt. I felt it was important to the article to showcase the impact that it may have had on some (perhaps most) people at the time. I'm curious about why my upload didn't work; was it too big a file? Or too long? Maybe it wasn't accepted because I hadn't filled in all the information fields correctly? Anyway, many thanks, again. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've fixed a few of those now. It was in Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request & that's how I stumbled across it. So yes, it was too long of a sample & the info fields should be complete also. Anyhow, cheers! Dawnseeker2000 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Shop list at Portland International Airport

Hi Dawnseeker, alas my edit which removed the shop and restaurant list was reverted, claiming that there would not be any general consensus about not including such information into airport articles (see here or here). Maybe you want to discuss on this matter, too? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User: 190fordhouse

(Sigh of relief)Thank you! That is the exact problem I have with them. They also sockpuppet, because I recognize the same pattern of changes and behavior from User: Statmo1921 and User: SonnywithaChancefan. I figured this out by linking all of them to simultaneously making edits to the Stafford Municipal School District(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stafford_Municipal_School_District&action=history). On their Statmo1921 profile I gave them several warnings and as a result they changed my words to vulgar language. If you check the editing history you will see that. I've tried to report them for months, but I haven't been able to since I've never had to.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will watch what happens at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/190fordhouse. Dawnseeker2000 05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a joke

As I requested of Pinethicket, please stop revising my post on Purvis, Mississippi. I've read all the rules (noting where it says things are illegal actions versus "generally frowned upon") and I've violated nothing. Your opinion of "vandalism" doesn't constitute vandalism. I'll have you know I actually AM from that town, and a well known one at that. The link I provided was valid. Your objection to my post, however, was not. I'm not a joke, and don't appreciate the reference. I apologize for having accomplished many more notable things than sitting around editing Wikipedia all day. Any information gained on the internet should not be taken seriously or as a credible source, and if people want the closest thing they can get to "real" information, they should go read a "real" book. On top of everything else, your jealous shenanigans are costing me a $500 wager that an acquaintance made with me. It was requested that I provide a valid link in compliance with the guidelines, and I did. ~~Kit-Fox8~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit-Fox8 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User that was recently banned...

Is editing again under an I.P. address, despite being blocked for 2 weeks. Should I report them for defying the ban?Carmaker1 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warning on Web 2.0

Annoying though these "Hey class, here's how to edit Wikipedia" edits are, it's rarely justified to go straight to a threat of an immediate block. The problem is that an empty threat is worse then nothing, and it's unlikely that anyone would get blocked for merely a second vandalism (it usually takes 4-5 minimum) as WP:AIV would tend to reject that as "Insufficient prior warnings".

Personally I just revert first vandalisms and don't warn, unless it looks like a genuine test edit and they simply need a pointer to the sandbox. The kids who want to scrawl their names on things or write "poo!" are seeking attention as much as anything, and being ignored is probably the most annoying thing that can happen to them. The ones who need blocking are the persistent ones, not the drivebys - they just need fixing and moving on. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That person could have just as easily been the type that would go on a twenty minute rampage. I gave a "one more and that's it" just to make sure. Too many folks like that running amok here. Carry on... Dawnseeker2000 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So wait 10 minutes and stomp them then. There's not much vandalism (outside WP:BLP) that really needs fixing that quickly. Most of the one-hits are just that, one-offs - whether by renouncing vandalism or by switching IP we don't usually find out, but most of them do go away.

There's a more persistent one busy there right now, if you've still got your Clueiron warm. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editor changing dates

I saw your revert on CHiPs‎ and warning on their talk page User talk:173.67.108.94. They are at it wholesale [1]. I didn't revert any of them before because I thought they might be genuine errors that the IP editor corrected (I did make some reversions and give them warnings on other grounds)... but it seems that they might be adding errors to dozens of articles on purpose. Rapido (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see they're going to town. The person doesn't leave edit summaries so there's no way to know. They could be one of the many people that are destroying Wikipedia for all we know. All I know is I can not wait for the shift to turn to making a quality encyclopedia. We certainly don't have that yet. Thanks for stopping by. Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove a charming example of Anguilla church architecture?

Hello, I live here in Anguilla. We are religious people, with more churches for an island of this size, I am sure, that any other island.

I enjoy the section about the Anguilla church architecture. It is stunningly simple, yet beautiful. A Web page was given as an external reference ( http://www.anguilla-beaches.com/anguilla-photos-churches.html ). If you scroll to the bottom, you will see that other Anguillians have added their own photo and love this page.

I do like the reworking of the article you did, except for this. This page has been a reference for years. By removing it, I believe the the point is weakened. Can you explain to me why you removed it?

I do not know how to create an account and I have never contributed to wikipedia. I just like, like other Anguillians, I am sure, checking what people have written about us. Thanks very much for your explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is not a quality link. It's more like spam, and it cannot be used as a source for anything. A source must be a recognized authority. Dawnseeker2000 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you say this is not a quality link? The photos are beautiful. If I search at compete.com, I see that the site itself has more traffic than any other site about Anguilla (Compete is a very interesting resource I recently discovered that you should check out it's amazing how this wonderful site about Anguilla gets more traffic than the government sites. I guess it's because people like it more.) The link that you talk about has been there for years. Are you saying the only good links are the ones YOU like in particular, government links, your own links to wikitravel and other wikipedia projects, and to the spammy Open Directory Project? Sorry, I thought this was an ubiased dictionary, not cronyism and governments. The Anguilla entry for Anguilla is worse for your deletion. And Wikipedia is starting to feel like a closed system that does not want any other contributions. Too bad for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you simply add it to the Open Directory Project? That is a great idea. Dawnseeker2000 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That was not the point (Open Directory Project). I never even use directories. I like the site (anguilla-beaches.com) for many reasons, but the site owner can submit to directories. It's not my job. I did not add the church-architecture link to Wikipedia. The link to that beautiful church page from anguilla-beaches.com had been in Wikipedia FOR YEARS, as an example of the charming church architecture that we have. Suddenly, you come along and, without providing a better link, decide it is "spam"? If you cannot find a better page that illustrates the architecture, you should restore it as the authority that visually documents our church architecture, or just remove the whole point about our beautiful, simple and varied places of worhip. And it is not just me who enjoys that page. Scroll to the bottom and see how tourists and we "Belongers" (Anguillians) alike have submitted their own photos of other churches, too. Sorry, don't tell me to submit someone else's site to a directory as an answer. Instead, give me a reason why you would remove a link to a page that documented a point very well and that had presumably passed countless other editors. I don't understand who you are or what you do at Wikipedia, but if it's a position of some kind of authority, I feel you've made an error. If it's not, I should restore the link but don't really want to fight with you if you have the final position of authority and can arbitrarily overrule my logic anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like the website adds much to the article. It's a low quality no-name website with some pictures and a bunch of promotional material. User NVcats just added a similar link (http://leewardislandguide.com/leeward-islands/anguillaleewardislands.html) to the article and got blocked for spamming. Dawnseeker2000 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide? Search Google for Anguilla and you will see that they seem to think otherwise. Compete.com shows it gets more traffic than EVERY other site about Anguilla. You know more, I hope, than to mistake a typical spam site with no character (your leewardisland example) or passion or history, for a site that is 8 years old and is considered here in Anguilla as a truly wonderful site about Anguilla. What makes it bad? Her Google ads? You never answer any of my points or justify your answers. You don't provide a better example of a pictorial for church architecture. Again, who are you and on what basis beside "you feel" do you make the decisions that you do? I give you real information and you give me "you feel." How can you not feel that photos of most of our churches doesn't add to a point about architecture? Do you enjoy books about architecture without photos or illustrations? It makes no sense. Do some research and you will see that your leewardisland example is irrelevant and non-applicable to this. No one "just added" that link. I spent some time on that site just now and can't imagine that site adding any value to any article. Have you actually spent some time reading anguilla-beaches.com? This is a real site about a real family who portrays Anguilla with love and passion, that covers the island with more personal stories than any other site I have ever seen, Anguilla or elsewhere. And you call it a "low quality no-Name webiste?" Wow. You would be laughed at here in Anguilla for saying that. I'm sorry, but you make no sense. Could you tell me if you have authority at Wikipedia or if you're just a regular person like me, except you know how to use Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a contributing editor. That's it. And I think I've spend enough time on this. Your persistance about this website is astonishing. Take care. Dawnseeker2000 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I persist because 1) I love that anguilla-beaches.com as do many people around the world (more than any other site about Anguilla, as I've stated but you ignore despite data that you could verify); 2) I tend to persist when people don't answer good points; and 3) your evasivness and lack of a single solid answer is istelf "astonishing." I come back to read about my country every now and then, watch our article evolve. Now that I know that Wikipedia is far from its PR of a "people's encylcopedia," but instead is ruled by autocrats who decide and ignore genuine feedback, who wipe out contributions (not just this one) made by so many others over the years, you won't see me back here again. I now sense that you merely need to win by asserting authority and YOUR baseless opinion, not by actually answering any of the points that I make above. That calls the entire concept of Wikipedia and what it is supposed to be into doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that link would survive the critique of a featured article review. Probably wouldn't even squeak through a good article review. Sorry you're disappointed. Dawnseeker2000 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are back to "you think" again and refusing. I am offering valid points and you keep offering YOUR individual opinion, ignoring the points I make. The site anguilla-beaches.com does meet the standards you refer to. If it does not, please point out another site that is more complete, better written, and more ENGAGING. And that is not MY opinion. I'm sure you know of sites like compete.com and other resource that compare the opinions of who REALLY counts, not you or me, but all the people who visit these sites. The more research I do, the more the site impresses me. Despite the fact that this "girl" started the site at 14 years old and had no budget, you will find that no site gets more visits or pages per visit. Sites like the government's sites have the natural authority of "pre-ordained" authority and hire expensive AMERICAN Web firms, have many more links to it from other major sites like the New York Times due to it's built-in authority and yet the people's choice is the work of this now 20+ year old woman.

Wikipedia's own article does not, in fact, pass your standards as it is far less engaging, lacks many references or the references are circular, has many inaccuracies (the coral reefs are not "spectacular" by international standards, the religion part alone has been funny to watch over the years and I could list 20 other inaccuracies at a glance but why bother when the only thing that really counts is ONE person's opinion, yours). The Wikipedia article is less complete in every respect (from weather to out-island coverage) except in history, which is not the job of a site that is dedicated to informing tourists about our island. You should have more faith in your own judgment and REALLY read that site, or just admit you have a built-in bias about "no-name" sites. Let me open your eyes. There are people out there in the real world writing extraordinary sites. They are better than big business, government, and religion. If those are the only sites you deem worthy, along with whatever "facts" people enter, and you eiminate documentation of a fact ("Anguilla church architecture") because the site is no-name and yet no better resource exists, well, Wikipedia is in trouble if they are all like you. If you're truly "sorry I'm disapopinted," please explain to me how other sites are superior to anguilla-beaches.com AFTER you've truly read it. It's not the New York Times, I agree. It's far more engaging. The standards you put up are merely an excuse to, once again, go to YOUR autoractic opnion, without offering any real rationale. Your answers boil down to "because I said so" while I take the time to explain and document why your opinion is wrong, at least in this specific case. Will your last word on this once again boil down to your opinion and pretend-palliation? If so, don't bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My argument for not including the link is based on Wikipedia standards. The article needs some quality book-based sources, not some person's "Hi, come visit Anguilla" website. That's all there is to it. The Open Directory Project is our solution here. Use it. Everyone knows some "charming little website" to add to Wikipedia. We can't add them all. Dawnseeker2000 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha. So the wikitravel.org article on Anguilla, which is an outline, badly out of date and has no book-based sources -- THAT one makes the cut? Sorry, it sorely misses the criteria. On that basis, can I delete it and replace it with anguilla-beaches.com, anguilla-vacation.com and anguillaguide.com, the big 3 travel sites about Anguilla and all of which are infinitely better than the wikitravel link under its own heading of TRAVEL?

And what about anguilla-vacation.com which is also a fine site but is also a "Hi, come visit Anguilla" website and has no book-based sources. How did it survive your knife? Why, by the way, would an original Web page with original photos need "book-based references." That page IS original research. It illustrated the architecture. So that does not fit your "everyone knows some charming little website," this was a specific documentation of a specific point which had survived as valid for years. Suddenly, though, YOU and YOUR bias decided you don't like no-name Web sites even thought others had obviously thought that this external link, serving as a specific reference, did serve its purpose. Why don't you just quit making excuses and admit that an article is only as good as the bias of the last "contributing editor" who reviews it? Is everyone as closed-minded when an opinion is called into question and makes a good point? There is no other valid explanation that you've offered than pure personal bias. Everything you say is either opinion or is contradicted by other links that are there. At the end of day if you just want to link to each county's government Web site, the CIA Factbook site and your own wikitravel site (a horrible resource which does meet the standards you set but which is part of YOUR "wiki" family, it has no redeeming values), why don't you just state that policy and hope that no one notices all the "facts" in the article itself which are undocumented and/or wrong. Realize that anyone could say that Anguilla has wonderful church architecture. Who would delete such a bland statement even if our architecture was no different than any other island (it's not, it really is special and unusually numerous for such a small population. But how do YOU know that? With photos. Without a page of photos, how do you know it's true? SUMMARY: The answer is OFTEN not from a "book source." It's from charming Web sites created by real people who were really there and took and grouped those photos. It's stunning to watch a closed mind at work -- does none of this make any sense to you. Or is the wiki-religion just to strong to actually call anything into question? And really... What the heck is Wikitravel article doing there? Can I delete that, please? It meets absolutely none of your criteria. Zero. Useless. Out of date. Inaccuracies. Is the real reason you want to chop "charming sites" like Anguilla's big 3 is that they make the wikitravel article look so horrible? If wikitravel belongs in a special section for Travel, they all do. How did that link make your cut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the anguilla-vacation.com site. Sorry for the confusion. I replaced it just now.Dawnseeker2000 17:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing! Amusing! You delete a good site (this one is the official site of the Anguilla Tourist Board, but as far as you'd be concerned it's just another "visit us" site). Instead, you ignore my REAL SUGGESTION and you keep a horrible one, the wikitravel article on Anguilla. Why? Why keep Footprint Travel Guides, it's just another tourist book,for that matter?

Your Anguilla history link is broken. Why keep that one? Anguilla News (news.ai) is inactive and is also just another "no-name" site. Hey, let's get rid of all of them! The UCB Libraries is a good link, its article is much better than Wikepedia's. The link to DMOZ is full of crappy sites and commercial sites renting villas, etc. that you hate, far "worse" than the ones you've been dropping. Why link to them? BUT the biggest point... don't you care that the article is full of inaccuracies... population out-of-date and not documented, GDP 2004??, errors in the history, too much emphasis on slavery which never thrived here, no mention of governor's role, the economy is not expanding (been hard hit by recession), Luis and Lenny are old news, airport data is incorrect, ferry incomplete, buses exist, Nigeria???, Chinese Indian and Mexican workers now mostly gone since development halted, on and on -- none of it is documented. But you will aggressively delete the documentation that does exist because its photos were taken by a "no-name." Do you realize that your entire Anguilla article is written by "no-names" and they've got a bunch of it wrong? And finally, just to repeat, what the heck is the link to wikitravel doing there? It's an abysmal article that meets none of your specs. Why would you delete anguilla-beaches.com, anguilla-vacation.com, yet refer the reader to wikitravel and DMOZ (Yahoo!'s directory listings are higher quality, by the way.) Bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.237.58 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I contact dawnseeker2000

Do you add comments here to contact dawnseeker2000 or is there a way to "message" this admin directly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmillercode (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You just did contact me. I am not an admin. I am a contributor. Dawnseeker2000 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

?

I've never even heard of Shannen Doherty, let alone edited her page, I think you must be mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.61.117 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not. This edit was made by the IP address that you're using. IP's sometimes change and this is why you've recieved the vandalism warning; the person that had the IP address previously is the one that made the edit. Apologies for any confusion. Dawnseeker2000 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ Editors deleting appropriate content under news and media sources for Caribbean. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Engine Control Unit page ideas

I see you've been active on the ECU page. I added some comments to the discussion page there. Comments welcome. James Murray 80.176.88.36 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Austrians = nazis

Oh come on dude, you know it's true. Are you a sympathizer to the huns?--192.12.88.2 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're working on a long-term block. Dawnseeker2000 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a kraut. Scheisse!--192.12.88.1 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Services page

Greetings - I made minor edits to the company information section and you flagged a copywrite infringement. I noticed the first reference was not accurate so I removed it this morning. Hopefully the page is ok now.

I'm not sure which editor you are. There's been a flurry of editors that have been changing the article to include a portion of http://ir.kellyservices.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=443213

That's not OK. Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). Dawnseeker2000 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The information you reverted back to is not accurate or current. We are simply trying to post current/accurate information. It was not cut & pasted from another Web site. mcconbc12.159.45.210 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The content matches that of the link that I provided. We must use our own words. This is the reason that I've reverted to previous versions. Did you look at the link? Did you see how the text is a verbatim copy? Content on an article that is not current is not a reason to use text that is pulled from a copyrighted website. Dawnseeker2000 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What?

You sent me a message referring to Dirty Harry or something, but what are you referring to? Was it on a Discussion page? Please elucidate before "deleting" for "good taste" or some such non-1st-amendment nonsense.