User talk:Dancter

Hey Bud Bro

Hey man it wasn't a personal attack or vandalism. It really was a noted quote at least in the nati where she is popular. Second of all your mom did call. I dont know why your upset about it. Chillax bud-bro.

Sorry

Sorry, can't talk, too busy doing doggy with my dad. I'M the receiver ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiizle (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Dancter 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't talk, too busy having doggy style with my dad. I'M the receiver ;)

Yeeeeep, I just love getting that sperm all the way up the innards of my asshole! I'm such a sick puppy, someone shoot me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiizle (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep this up and you will be blocked. Dancter 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help with citation problems?

Thank you very much for tagging Talk:Kundalini yoga as in need of better citations. Recently I have become interested in doing a cleanup of the articles Chakra, Kundalini, Kundalini yoga, and some other related things and have been rebuffed when I have insisted on improving the referencing. These articles are all largely unsourced and contain many WP:FRINGE claims. Can you assist in this cleanup effort by watchlisting these articles and helping to support compliance with WP:RS issues? Buddhipriya 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see quite a few listings in the references section, but without inline citations, it's difficult to check whether the article content is actually supported by them. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of those works, so unfortunately I won't be able to check those. I'll see what I can do about tracking down some Internet-based sources over the next few days. Dancter 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am mainly concerned with enforcing the referencing policies and adjusting the article structure to insist on better inline references in general. If you can simply watchlist the articles and assist with defense against addition of unsourced content it would be helpful. I do not support the use of web sources as references in most cases, as they tend to be non-authoritative. I would like to see some solid academic books used with precise inline citations so the article becomes verifiable. Buddhipriya 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Ego / Fable series

Hey; I need a bit of help. I'm personally involved in this case, so I feel limited in what I can do. There's a group of users that continually add links to their fansite projectego.net (you've reverted a few such edits) to the varies Fable articles. Since I run a competing website, loinhead.net, I don't want to revert these things myself because of obvious conflict of interests. This (http://forums.projectego.net/wikipedia-3018/) is the thread in which they're talking about it; I have explained that it's against the rules and they know this, but keep doing it. If you feel it's appropriate, perhaps warnings or the like would be in order - I believe they are. I just wanted to alert someone to what was going on. Cheers, fel64 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a conflict of interest. I encouraged Toddquest to discuss the projectego.net link in the talk pages, and it seems they have (see Talk:Fable 2#Fan sites). There's no absolute ban on fan sites, but my initial feeling is that this one probably isn't appropriate to single out. Please discuss it. I unfortunately am not familiar enough with the Fable fan community to have much to contribute to the discussion. That said, the link has been repeatedly removed by several independent editors, which seems to indicate some degree of consensus on the matter. It's better, though, if there is a dialogue in which it is established explicitly. Dancter 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a member at the Project ego.net forum, And I will be checking back to all the fable wikipedia pages to MAKE SURE that the link no longer appears. I have warned the members in the thread of interest (http://forums.projectego.net/wikipedia-3018/) Hopefully this problem will no longer appear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sephiroxas (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Game Boy m/Micro

I thought the plan was to stick with the capital version? Someone changed it all to lowercase and rather than revert it you took out the trademark information... Now I don't know what to think. --CBecker 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I do favor the capitalized styling per Wikipedia style guidelines, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to force the matter against opposing edits, especially without support. No strong consensus has been established, anyway. Aside from the handful of editors who participated in the old move discussion, it's pretty much been just you and me. I wasn't prepared to engage in an edit war at the time, so I simply removed the trademark note, which had become redundant. I may still change things back if I feel compelled to, which I currently don't. I didn't mean to send any mixed messages. Dancter 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, really, I don't understand...if this is NINTENDO'S official means of capitalizing the system, why does Wikipedia have guidelines that overrule that? That doesn't make any sense at all.Phaded 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation 3: connectivity infobox discussion

Hi, I’d just like to alert you to a post I just made on the PlayStation 3 article’s talk page. It regards the connectivity infobox that you removed from the article per Wikipedia policy. I don’t mean any personal offense, of course, but I’m trying to get people to support reinstating the use of the template in the article. Please see the post/discussion here, and respond on the talk page, not on my user talk page. Thank you. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Thank you for your welcome. I've been signed up for a while, but just got round to having a go. Hope my entry is OK. One thing though, I ticked the minor edit box by accident before saving the entry I had created - can it be changed? Jvager 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay; the article you created is perfectly okay for a newly-created article, especially for a newcomer. As for the minor edit flag, I wouldn't worry about it. You can't really change that or your edit summaries once you commit them. Dancter 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jvager 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Samsung article, etc

Greetings, Dancter. Due to widespread abuses, I have reported Firefox001/Pgdn/etc to Suspected Sock Puppets. They are collecting evidence to indicate that this user is improperly using multiple user accounts. It would be helpful if you added your testimonial to the discussion, as this user has been warned many times, and blocked several times, to no effect. I noticed you have already suspected these usernames of being the same person, as I have. If you would add your support to the discussion here [1], that would be appreciated. Thank you. Enigma3542002 07:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Dancter 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets all go to the lobby

Lets all go to the lobby and have are selves a snack ___ The infamous Edit Summary Vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.94.82 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

75.132.32.113

I am growing sick of 75.132.32.113 vandalizing the SSB template! Today when I reverted his edits, I checked his talk page and noticed that you had given him several warnings in the past. I just thought I'd let you know that he is still vandalizing the page. --Superneoking 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:PanelDePonDS.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PanelDePonDS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed image

Why did you remove the image from Jenna Fischer? It's a screenshot from a film and should be able to be used to represent her, shouldn't it? -Mike Payne 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does that very well, as I mentioned in my edit summary. Using it as the sole representation of the subject is misleading, as the particular image does not adequately depict either the actress herself or her characteristic work. In fact, part of the impact of that image is due to the contrast with general perception. In addition, non-free image use should be restricted to only as much as necessary to illustrate the subject, and the image currently is of a much higher resolution than that. Dancter 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably the reason why I like the image... :/ How about the one on the page now? It's already used in the Lollilove article, or I could just lower the resolution of the photo from Blades of Glory instead... -Mike Payne 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's better. Ideally, an image with a GFDL-compatible free license would be used, such as this one, but it doesn't seem that a good one has been found yet. Screenshots or movie stills are generally only fair use in context of the work itself, but I'm not so worried about problems with the use of the LolliLove image in the Jenna Fischer article. I'm not planning to remove the image, but that's not to say that someone else won't. If you have the patience, Wikipedia:Non-free content covers the issue more in depth. Dancter 05:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai

Trivia is unencyclopedic. I'm removing it. Any oppositions, please notify me. Thanks :). --Endo(Exo) 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Check again. The trivia section was restored unintentionally due to an edit conflict. I had already redone your edit right afterward. Dancter 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Princess Ariane

Saw your comment at Princess Ariane about the user insisting that her birth is a 6 and not a 7. I've tried engaging this vandal in the past. He's also edited from the following (blocked) accounts: Special:Contributions/Weather72787, Special:Contributions/Daisiesarepretty, Special:Contributions/68.161.57.216, Special:Contributions/68.161.98.86, Special:Contributions/68.161.130.102, Special:Contributions/68.161.105.197. I first noticed him switching the date on Jessica Lee Rose. Rose happens to be famous for her April 26 birthday, so it struck me as suspicious. I verified perhaps half a dozen of his date changes, and realized that they were all false. I tried pointing him to evidence that his changes were inaccurate, but it quickly became obvious that he's just a vandal, and all he does is change 6's to 7's. Thanks for helping watch the pages -- definitely keep an eye for those dates getting changed from 6's to 7's. He'll be back, I'm afraid. --JayHenry 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the user had such a history. I wouldn't have bothered with a reply had I known. I've seen them do some other things, some of which require some work and creativity to make convincing, so it's not just changing 6's to 7's. But that is probably a good indicator. Dancter 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Automatic band members

Hi sorry don't know where to put this but it regards the Automatic edit. The case involved is well known in the local area and if you'd care to check it up you would have found that it is true and perhaps is more informative than the majority of information in that entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.110.51 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, too. I should've examined the text a little more closely. It's not nonsense. I stand by the removal, though. When it comes to biographical content for living persons, the policy states that inadequately sourced material is to be immediately removed, especially negative content as you added. It wouldn't have been inappropriate to keep it in the meantime while a source is tracked down. If you can include a decent citation next time you add the information, it should be okay. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Dancter 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)