User talk:Danhash: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 20 February 2012

September 2011

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In a recent edit to the page WebP, you changed parts of the article from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are doing it on alot of articles. I warn you, this type of obsessive editing might get you into trouble and you may lose your editing ability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed hyphens to en dashes, moved a reference link to after a comma (which I thought was the proper style?), added a link, and added a comma for clarity. What national variety of English did I change the article from and to? I don't see where your accusation is accurate. --danhash (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my addition of a serial comma, which I assume because of your recent revert on the iMacros article, there was already another serial comma in the article, so my added comma improved consistency which is a stated goal of the policy on serial commas. I try to maintain consistency in the articles I edit, but if there is an article in which I haven't, please bring it to my attention. I will continue to strive to be careful in my edits, however your accusations on the WebP article are unfounded. I see you reverted an edit I made to iMacros which added clarity, but on second examination I see that I missed another comma separated list later in the article, so in that instance the addition of just one serial comma did not increase consistency, and I will be vigilant in the future to not cause the problem again. --danhash (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean do the evil serial comma, also known as Oxford comma and Harvard comma. In Wikipedia, it is an acceptable. What is not acceptable is changing from one acceptable form of style to another.

Mind you, there has been three scientific magazines which went under fire from linguists and grammarians around the world because of sanctioning the use of these commas. (Funny, but I don't understand what grammarians have to do with this -- it is a matter of style, not grammar.) In our university, linguistic professors threaten others of bloody murder for use of Oxford comma, or not using it, depending on which camp they are in. (Well, I am exaggerating.) But we don't want these fights in Wikipedia, do we? No. Wikipedia is all about maintaining the original style. Both styles are acceptable. Just don't change them.

I might also add how stupid these fights are. We do not have a fight over using fall or autumn but we have had fights over using such trifles as commas, which has led to Arbitration Committee to rule out all changes in style. Fleet Command (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there was already another serial comma in the article. There were two lists that could have had a serial comma—one had one and one did not. Hence, there was an inconsistency in the article. If either style is acceptable, which according to policy it is, then I had the choice of either removing the serial comma already there or adding a serial comma to the sentence without it. To fix the inconsistency, I had to make a choice, and my choice was to add a serial comma, which is acceptable. I merely created consistency, and I did not change the style of the article. As I have said, I will be more careful in the future in my edits regarding this issue. But in this case my edit was constructive. Commas are not trifles either, they are an important part of grammar. I try to respect regional variations of English and generally do not make edits changing one regional variety to another, but that issue has zero relevance to the edit in question. --danhash (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the article predominantly using serial comma? If so, you were correct. If not, you should not have added serial comma. And, your argument that "comma is not a trifle" does not concern Oxford comma, which are redundant anyway. Oxford commas are style, not grammar. Fleet Command (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even pay attention to what I said? There were two instances where the serial comma issue applied: one sentence had the comma and one didn't. There was no predominant use of or absence of the serial comma. I'm not going to argue with you about whether serial commas are redundant or not, we obviously have a difference of opinion. But I did nothing wrong and it is obvious. Furthermore, your initial notice on my talk page was totally irrelevant --danhash (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly hearing you and I am perfectly hearing my professors who claim I am not hearing. They too, say I have a difference of opinion. (But they also mention in forceful tone what I must do with that opinion.) I have said all I should say and perhaps this is the last time you ever see me around. Have fun. Fleet Command (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not hearing what I said, and you did not examine my edit before carelessly adding a warning to my talk page. If you had examined my edit or listened to what I just said in my previous post, you would know that there was no predominant usage established in that article. Throwing warnings around carelessly starts the kind of controversy you have claimed to want to avoid. --danhash (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed another comma issue on John the Ripper. Yes, I added a serial comma, and yes the article was predominantly using them: all three other instances of comma-separated lists had serial commas. Please don't revert any more of my grammatical edits without a valid reason. --danhash (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Aero article, of the seven or eight instances where Oxford commas could be used, only two were present. You added four more. If there was a predominance towards one usage or the other, it would have been towards not using them, so the thing to do would have been to remove the two that were present in the first place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty short article with multiple editors—some had used them, some hadn't, oh well. I wanted to fix it. Not going to keep arguing with you. --danhash (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For making good formatting calls on the FL Studio page. MusicLover650 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows To Go USB Flash Drive.png

Extended content

I've reverted your removal of the replaceable fair use tag. This is a utilitarian object, and as such it can be photographed by a Wikipedia editor and released under a free license. We don't have to have a non-free image to depict this thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it could be, eventually, but do you have one? No sense removing it till we have a better one. I'm not even sure these flash drives are available to the public yet, so it would likely be very hard to get another picture for some time. Also the description shouldn't say not replaceable if it is replaceable. —danhash (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template, this should be taken up at files for deletion. —danhash (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand WP:NFCC #1. The question isn't whether I have such an image, or one is available. The question is, could one be made? Since this thing exists and is viewable to the public, the answer is yes. That creates a failure of WP:NFCC. There's really no wiggle room on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Extended content

Hi Danhash. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ^X 02:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hiersolymitani Speedy Deletion

Extended content

Require explanation of why you think the OSMTH wiki page needs to be deleted. I am awaiting clarification on a few points before updating them. I ask again what the grounds for removal are? 80.238.1.135 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was improperly titled, improperly formatted, and looked like gibberish. It was redirected to Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani and the speedy deletion tag removed, so it doesn't matter any more. —danhash (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTML comments

Extended content

Hi, Danhash, regarding your HTML comment Why is this SPAN here on Form follows function--normally such comments should go on the talk page--adding HTML comments inline does nothing to improve the article, and normally will not be seen. I've removed it, but feel free to add it back to the talk page. I can't read minds so don't know for sure, but a good guess based on the presence of the 'id="MAYA" ' attribute would be that it was placed there as the target of a fragment link from another page. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info :) —danhash (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Highly accelerated stress screening

Extended content

Hi Dan,

I would never copy and paste text from a copyrighted source, so maybe someone replaced the text of the page with copyrighted material? I'm not an admin, so I can't check the history of the page. I also don't know whether I created it in the first place: I didn't list it on my user page with the other pages I created, and I can't find it in my list of contributions (maybe because it's deleted?) I'll replace it with a redirect to highly accelerated life test in the meantime. --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I sent a message to the admin who deleted the page here with an explanation. I will be more careful with speedy tagging in the future. —danhash (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. HAST and HALT probably need to be merged in any case. Keep up the good work! --Slashme (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTSD - thanks for recent technical editing!

I have just finished review the series of very recent edits you have made. Thank you for some fine technical editing. I focus on content and don't always catch punctuation problems, especially in sections I haven't worked on. Your attention to the article is VERY much appreciated. I hope we will see repeat visits as time progresses. This sort of clean up s surely needed, but doesn't always get done. As with all things Wikipedian, there is no substitute for a good team! - Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Tom! I'm glad somebody noticed :) I really enjoy this kind of clean up, so if you see any other articles that could use these types of fixes, or if you noticed something else in the PTSD article that needs attention, let me know. Glad to know somebody is watching over the page. —danhash (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm definitely watching. It's my pet project.

And yet again - you just caught a vandalized reference which I'd missed. THANKS! Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#Status of this article - clarification of my position. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Per WP:CANVAS, I would prefer an uninvolved third party. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved. I had already been planning on commenting on the talk page after my own review of the discussion and edits in question. I am glad Tom has asked for my opinion, but FYI, his request for comment was not needed, as I was already intending, independently, to join the discussion. I will join the discussion if and when I am ready and have time, and Tom's request that I do so is not inappropriate. (In case you missed it, I made 2 recent edits to the article before Tom invited me to join the discussion.) —danhash (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN posting notification

Administrator's noticeboard posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thank you for what you said on the talk page for DID. I hope you enjoy this kitten.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source for TV Show

You removed my edit for the Dibs page stating that I needed a source. How do I go about sourcing a quote from a TV show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.31 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything else on Wikipedia, information about TV shows needs to be verifiable; in other words, it needs a citation from a reliable source. Policy pages can be a bit much to take in all at once, so you may want to check out the new contributors' help page for help with where to find a reliable source for a TV show quote. If you're up for a bit of extra reading, you may want to check out the "Content" section of the "In popular culture" content essay. I removed the warning from your talk page; thanks for asking for help! Let me know if you have any more questions. —danhash (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Script and Danny's page

Hi Dan Hash,

I work for The Script, they're a client of {{Essence Digital]] UK PR company. I saw you reverted changes I had made instructed by the band that were correctly referenced. Could you advise me on your reasoning for doing this, and give me any help or hints to processes to ensuring the content stays up there?

Cheers,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScriptOfficial (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George, the problems with your edits and with your username have been pointed out before. You cannot edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes; please see Wikipedia:Promotion. Your username must reflect yourself and not another entity or group of people; please see the sections of our username policy entitled "Company/group names" and "Sharing accounts". No band, company, or other group of people own any article on Wikipedia or have the authority to dictate its contents; please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not censored i.e. information will not be removed because you do not like it; please see "Wikipedia is not censored" on the what Wikipedia is not page. Since you seem to have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), you may make an edit request if you would like to edit an article which you have a monetary or other incentive to edit. Speaking from experience, it is very likely that you will be blocked very soon (I very well may report you to the Administrators' Noticeboard myself). You must change your username to one that represents ONLY yourself and does NOT represent The Script, Essence Digital, or ANY company, business, or other group of people. You have been told many of these things before on your talk page, at Talk:The Script (see sections "Official Script Message" and "STOP ADDING MY TOWN!"), and at Sitush's talk page. Please take a good look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I have again removed the promotional material you added to Danny O'Donoghue and have issues a final warning on your talk page. If you have any questions feel free to reply here or to post at the Help desk. —danhash (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinterest copyright

You've asked... Illegal according to what laws? Copyright law plain and simple. They don't own rights to almost all the images on the site. This is why content creators are raising this issue. Who says that no copyright owners give permission to reuse their images? The fact that Pinterest insists in their terms that users only pin images they have rights to shows that they know they have no right to start using others work. Who says the images are even copied to Pinterest's servers at all? - It has to be this way as otherwise Pinterest's pages would have missing images when images are removed from the original source. Who says that even if they are copied without permission that this is illegal? Of course it's illegal. Even Pirate Bay and others ensure that they don't host the content as it's not theirs. It will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out. What would the music industry make of an audio version of Pinterest where users could pin songs, with the original songs then copied to the site for others to listen to? Tigershoot (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that information MUST be verifiable. It does not matter what you think is true; we need citations to reliable sources. Additionally, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means no matter how "wrong" or illegal you think Pinterest's business model is, you must write about it in a neutral way. You have been told this on the talk page, but you apparently didn't hear it. I will not discuss Pinterest's business model further with you until you abide by these policies. —danhash (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny request of edits

Dan I simply need to know how to add the information you have undone and removed and request for My Town not be listed. If I change my username is this possible? Thanks for all you help so far. As far as I'm aware the article info I've written is within WIKI guidelines? George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.117.150 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that Wikipedia is not for promotion. It is not a marketing outlet, and you do not get to control what is on Wikipedia in order to manipulate a "public image". What is your reason for not wanting Mytown to be listed on pages about the band? You need to change your username because "TheScriptOfficial" indicates that you are editing on behalf of the band. Your Wikipedia user account may only represent yourself. I have given you links to policies, newbie guides, and explanations of all of these things; I do not think you have really read or understood our rules here. Even if you change your username, you still have a conflict of interest if you are editing on behalf of the band or if your job includes editing Wikipedia for The Script. Regardless of your username, you will be blocked for repeated censorship of information or addition of promotional material. Your edits that I reverted read like a press release which is the very definition of promotional material. Generally speaking, you are only allowed one username. I notice that your IP address (83.217.117.150) is one that has previously removed Mytown from the Danny O'Donoghue article. Have you used any other accounts or IP addresses to edit Wikipedia? —danhash (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

I completely understand, and will follow the processes sent over previously. For now can you remove the 15m pound deal off the page and leave My Town? The deal is utter rubbish and there is no sources backing this up. The band management and label are all happy to send any info over to STOP this being posted. Apologies for the piece reading like a press release, everything in there was based on facts which I backed up following wiki referencing guide lines. Would you be able to include some of the info I posted in your edit. This would be a huge help to The Script team and would mean that we could stop editing the pages from a brand perspective all together.

Info we need is:

Age: Origins: Work with other producers: Awards:

Thanks,

George