User talk:DanielRigal

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archives

edit conflict

potato doesn't belong in that article

This user is a recent changes patroller.

JKshaw (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What happened is that you removed one of two edits that added potato based nonsense to Practical joke and I reverted it further to remove both of them. So I wasn't reverting your reversion, I was just reverting more than you did. Check the diffs if you are not sure. Anyway, I just checked it and the whole article is now fully potato free and the dignity of practical jokes is no longer sullied by inappropriate association with irrelevant root vegetables. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speady deletion of Pension sistems

The article that I have in mind is different because it is in the view of the cost of the Pension sistems to the State balance. There are to evidence the public law and the private law that regulate the pension sistems and their inpact in the economy. There are the implicit public debt that the public pension sistems carry to the States and the intergenerational conflict that create. I want continue. See Laurence Kotlikoff --Conigliomannaro (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there is no such word as "sistems" and we already have a redirect for the correctly spelled name Pension system. Beyond that, there is the basic problem that we don't want two articles giving different views of the same subject. Everything valid on the subject should go into the existing article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpstain

Do you reckon Yanascarr and Pimpstain are socks? I don't think it's worth bothering with an SPI. —George8211 / T 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have not come across Yanascarr yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pimpstain. —George8211 / T 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. That's pretty blatant isn't it? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, what does {{megaphoneduck}} mean? I understand {{duck}}. —George8211 / T 21:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that before but I think it is just a jokey way to say that it "quacks like a duck" really loudly. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. —George8211 / T 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otto Peters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture (Mohammedan)

We are defining a term, not writing a biographical page; I don't see what makes the picture necessary. Leaving out the picture harms no one and ensures people don't get offended. Adding the picture doesn't benefit anyone, and yet may offend some. Which is the better option, then? The picture doesn't even count as knowledge - it is epistemic trash; it is not an actual representation of the figure it tries to depict - what is not real is not considered knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthman Ibn Sabeel (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the matter here: Talk:Muhammad/images.

If there is a good argument to remove it, and the consensus shifts to not having it, or having a different picture instead, then I won't object. Indeed, if there a consensus to remove/change it, I'll even remove it myself if anybody else puts it back however that is not the situation at present. The present consensus it to have the picture. If you continue to remove it without discussion then this is likely to be seen as disruptive editing. Please don't do that. I am going to restore it again but I will leave the rest of your edit. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have realized that there is already a very long discussion there. I hate lengthy dialectics. There are certain epistemological ethics that do not require long discussions. I have already stated this: that the image is of no epistemic or historical value. What is the justification for putting it there?

Uthman Ibn Sabeel (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have two choices. Either engage with the discussion there or just back off an leave things as they are. You are going to start getting warnings for disruptive behaviour if you don't do one or the other. I have already kicked off discussion at the bottom of the page. As you can see, I have done so in a way that is actually quite sympathetic to your viewpoint. Lets see what they say. In the meantime the image will be restored. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete my post on Krishna?

Dear Sir,

I wanted to know why you have deleted my post on Krishna? I had posted something which is verified by our teachings of hinduism and Sampradayas if you know this matter.

Please clarify, Abhijeet Abhijeetradhakrishna (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Two reasons:

You are putting in content without valid sourcing. You need to read WP:RS.
You are putting in content which is slanted towards your own point of view, which is not how an encyclopaedia should be written. The ISKCon view is relevant to these articles but it should not dominate all others. So both the tone and the quantity was unbalanced. Please read WP:NPOV.

Added to that, you seem keen to add links to your local ISKCon website. We don't need that because the views of ISKCon are already referenced to the main ISKCon website and other reliable sources. Also the site you linked to is pretty much incomprehensible to somebody who is not already very familiar with the subject, which makes it a poor choice for further reading for most of our readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedan

Hi, I have a question on one of your page; Mohammedan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan. There is no such thing as Mohammedan. The name of the Prophet is Muhammed and the name of religion is Islam and followers of that religion are Muslims. Can you please fix that? It is highly offensive and I deeply appreciate your time and effort. Thank you------Muslimah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah411 (talk • contribs)

Will attempt to address this on Muslimah411's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neucoin speedy deletion?

I did read the page on my first article, I thought I followed the rules. If you could send me my entry to go to ask for tips in the tea room how to edit it to an acceptable manner that would be appreciated. I thought it said it was okay to put all the sources on the bottom at the beginning. The points that may sound a bit unambiguous are backed up in the citations. In one of the citations a senior member of peercoin (one the most popular PoS coins) speaks well of Neucoin thus it is in fact quickly gaining respect in the community. I did not state any opinions about the pricing for the presale but thought it was information that belonged in the wiki. The first source gives information on each team member of the coin and shows that they all are in fact successful. Darteous (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but all I see is an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. It blatantly solicits business. As for the claim of a currency that pays 100% "return" in its first year. All I see is a classic pyramid scam. Of course, some such scams are notable, the South Sea Bubble springs to mind, but I doubt that this one is. The only one of the references I recognise as having any value at all is the TechCrunch one and that doesn't seem like enough so substantiate such wild claims of success and profitability. If I am completely wrong about this then I am sure that the deletion will be declined by the reviewing administrator. You can make your counterarguments on the article's talk page and they will be looked at before a decision is taken on deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Neucoin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neucoin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Darteous (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Niraula

Seems like they keep on putting refs that don't work and removing blp prods-here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mahendra_Niraula Wgolf (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Here is another article by them Sworup Raj Acharya. Wgolf (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking through their contribs. Some of the subjects are valid but very poorly written (e.g. secondary schools), so I am tagging those. I did laugh at their adding "source=water" to an article about a waterfall. I don't think this is feigned ignorance. I think they really do have no idea what they are doing. I'll try to put something on their talk page but I don't know if they even read it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Nepalese's Fellow Guano

Dear,editor Daniel

I am quite amazing as you told me that I don't understand english but I do agree to some degree saying that I have made mistakes on using proper standard of English such as tone,cohesion and more with the view of grammar.It's OK to point even those mistakes so that I can go improving such mistakes in further edits.It may sometime happen because of problems in typing so, more what I wanted to inform you that the any article wrote in English Wikipedia can be read by all language peoples as it's a international language and also I intended to do that but you told me to try in any other language. Yea,that's good idea and I am a nepali Wikipedian as well as English so, as far as I know it's not better to say me so .With best regardMahendra Niraula (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care. You managed to mess up my talk page when you added this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Telugu Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Telugu

Ya. M. Sverdlova State Owned Enterprise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dzerzhinsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]