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!

Cleanup search results

Hi, Daniel. You said on your user page that you are Deletionist. In this case, maybe you are interested to use User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult tool (and log) and add it on your watchlist. This is a list created by bot about the problematic new articles. They are not all to be deleted – vice versa, I think that most of them are worth to be improved, but definitely there is also lot of nonsense and non-notable promotional material. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Rigal Thank you for your response about the article I statrted on fish mortality. I was trying to add some refrences and sources but I failed to do that. Could you please help. Thank you. Fisheries Biologist (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Message

I have no problem with what you have said, but the problem I have with Khalsaburg, is he is deleting references with ISBN numbers for no reason and calling them obsufication. He replaces them with his own view. This is unacceptable on wikipedia. As for religious view, I actually share most of the views of Khalsaburg, but I am also aware, that is a minority Sikh view. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you could help me set up mediation. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with mediation. The process is here Wikipedia:Mediation. You have to work your way up through the levels of formality before you can request a full mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for comment seems to come before full mediation. It might be sufficient. If it attracts more people to look over the articles in question and keep them on their watchlists then future problems will be seen by more people and they can help keep balance. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted one of the mediators to kick things off. I really don't want to be sen as the bad guy here, and I think any mediation will reveal that I have been trying to source primary references. Thanks for your words, as I sometimes need to be reminded to not take deletion of my edits personally. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Mathews

Peter Mathews in the last election won 17% of the 34th district (according to the Secretary of State, California) as a write in a ballot in the 2008 elections making him a contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Before that in 1996 he lost the election by only 6 points. Peter Mathews is currently ON THE BALLOT for the 2010 Congressional Elections making him a leading contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Peter Mathews was the leading organizer and founder of an organization which protested the rising tuitions in California Community Colleges in the early 90s.If you also go to the youtube channel Power4People, Mathews has been interviewed a myriad of occasions by NBC news. He doesn't have a time machine but it's worth mentioning that there is no harm in rerunning for a Congressional seat Daniel. Abe Lincoln lost several House elections before he was elected, what Mathew's is doing is purely American. And yes it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his pocket. Angora. He has met most of the requirements. He is a viable local candidate which won 17% of the popular vote in a rather large district in 2008 and lost by 6 points in a previous election in 1996. He has been interviewed by NBC and various other news outlets. For the special 2008 edition of Esquire, Peter Mathews was nominated as a better candidate over incumbent Laura Richardson. Granted, the page has some holes for now, due to it being started up but in due time we'll be able to incorporate more into the page. Within a few weeks, which like most wikipedia pages, will be sufficient time to get things going. --Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--

You don't have to paste this in multiple places. I saw it on the AfD discussion.

You are making claims of serious coverage which should be enough to save the article if you rewrite it from scratch using that coverage as sources and references (not YouTube, but the stuff that meets wp:rs). Pasting in his 2006 election pamphlet (which was why I joked about a time machine) as a starting point was a huge mistake but there is still time to improve things however I am very concerned that you are only interested in editing this one article. That could indicate a conflict of interests, in which case you are doing more harm than good by trying to write an article.

I have added the standard welcome message to your talk page, as I see that you missed out on it originally. This has guidance on how to write and reference articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character IQs

Hello! I am doing some searching and it does appear the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Might you please reconsider so that we can use what we can from it for these purposes? And as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this sounds like an good idea for a new article but I suspect that the portrayal of intelligence generally, rather than IQ in particular, will be the best subject. IQ is quite a new subject whereas intelligence has been written about for many centuries. I don't think it is worth trying to twist the article currently at AfD into this new shape. I think starting from scratch with a title like Intelligence in fiction would be better. It also means that you don't have to wait for the AfD to finish. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Banksy

please don't remove sourced work as you did on the Banksy page, use the talk page first, and if you did you would see that the ref is on the reliable notice board, it up for discussion not removal. I will revert your edit please continue to express your concerns at the notice board or talk page--86.11.100.50 (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even add it in an appropriate place within the article. Other people have also reverted it. Please stop readding it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The ref is fine, and has been given the ok at the reliable noto notice board, so really it not down to you to remove it, also please remeber the the3RR Rule I believe you have one more left--86.11.100.50 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. You see it isn't only me removing it. I think we have a clear consensus that this is not appropriate content in the form you insist on adding it. The wp:3rr applies to you as well. If you keep reinserting the same content then you will be in breach of it. I suggest you ask yourself why people have a problem with your content, rather than just adding it back. The reason is simple: It is not appropriate to make a complete new section, at the top of the article, to discuss the speculative attribution of a single work to Banksy, even if it is referenced. There are many such speculative attributions. There is no reason for this one to get the grand treatment. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Platinum Gum

I shall miss this when (presumably tomorrow) it's all over. CAT:HOAX is definitely one of the most entertaining dungeons in the Wikipedia MMORPG. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I just love the fact that the AfD will shortly be set in stone and that anybody Googling for "Platinum Gum" from now on will see it. It is just a pity that your excellent work on its talk page will go down with it. I suggest taking a copy. It is too good to die. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Even as you wrote that, I was taking a copy - the same thought had occurred to me. --JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Daniel, I have initiated a DRV for AbsoluteTelnet and would appreciate your input. I respect your obvious logical and methodical approach and value your opinion (good or bad) in the DRV. Thanks. See AbsoluteTelnet Deletion Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpence (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Daniel at the DRV for Absolute. I've gone further to look for more sources and found four books where AbsoluteTelnet is referenced. You can see these on the DRV page. I *love* google book search! It will show you excerpts from these books where AbsoluteTelnet is found. There's not a *lot* in there besides a few paragraphs or mentions of the product, but I thought it might be significant that these authors found it a program worthy of mentioning in print. Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? I also went and reviewed the other 12 clients from the "Comparison of SSH clients" page to see what kind of source material others were using so I could get a better idea of what to use for the AbsoluteTelnet article. However, most of the clients seem to be missing source references altogether or they reference only their own website and/or mailing lists, etc. Do you have the time to point me to a few examples of well-written software product pages that satisfy notability and have sources that are RS? --Brian Pence (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Mark

Hi Daniel,

You recently reversed a comment I made oN Freddy Mark's page. I assume that you do not want it published that he is a naturist. After years of working in children's television, i thought it was common knowledge that Freddy is an avid and unashamed naturist. He has asked me if I have ever been interested, but alas, I have declined! Best wishes, Mark Markcurry99 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about your personal experiences with celebrities. It cares that what it publishes is referenced to reliable sources so that it can be checked for accuracy. I don't care if Freddy Marks is or is not a naturist. If you can find a reliable source that says that he is then it can be included. If not, then it is unverifiable and probably not notable anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet AFD (round two)

Is it normal for an article to go straight from DRV right back to AFD?--Brian Pence (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is quite common. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM

You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I added to Microsoft Office 2000 two primary Microsoft's sources archived by Internet Archive Wayback Machine in form of direct links to newest available 2000-related archivals of Microsoft website. ㍐ (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's OK for a start but you will need more than that. Look for additional coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added to Microsoft Office 2000 two additional unarchived Microsoft's primary sources analogous to those found in Microsoft Office XP article. ㍐ (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem now. You are copying Office XP but that isn't very well referenced either. It is important to find something that isn't from Microsoft. Maybe you can reuse some of the ones on Microsoft Office? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I found only two more references from Microsoft Office that are related to Office 2000 and added them to Microsoft Office 2000 article. ㍐ (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Virus Protection Software

Daniel, thanks for undoing my contribution of ”Sourcenext” from the list of anti-virus service providers. I do not doubt your decision. For my own knowledge, would you briefly explain your reasons for undoing it? Travis28 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is not meant to be a list of all anti-virus software. It is only meant to be a list of software which has demonstrated its notability. Generally that means it will have a Wikipedia article of its own before it goes on the list. Sourcenext does not have an article, hence its link is red. Relevant policies are wp:red, wp:directory and wp:n. If you think that Sourcenext is notable (as defined in wp:n then you can make an article about it including references to reliable sources which prove this. If that doesn't get deleted then you can re-add to the list of AV software. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, I would ask that you reconsider your stance on deleting information from this and other list-type articles. I think it is contradictory to wp:n and wp:red that you yourself cite. I re-read these policies carefully after you deleted entries from the Comparison of SSH clients article. Specifically, WP:N states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." This tells us directly that notability should only be used to determine whether Sourcenext has it's own article. It does not indicate that it couldn't exist in List of antivirus software. Also, WP:red states that "In topic lists, it is useful to include every topic on the subject you can possibly find or think of that could plausibly sustain an article. When they are turned into links, the list immediately shows where the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage for that subject are, since all of the topics missing articles will show up in red." WP:redlinks *does* allow for removal of redlinks for *deleted* articles, and Sourcenext WAS deleted. However, it is my interpretation that the entry in List of antivirus software should be de-linked rather than be removed entirely. Can you comment? If I am missing some relevent policy point that governs software lists differently, please direct me to the proper policy page. --Brian Pence (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The key phrase with red links is "could plausibly sustain an article". This means that people should not put make red links that are not plausible articles. Dealing with people adding spam to the lists means that we have to be a bit more ruthless than we would like with red links and other list entries. It is up to each list article to decide whether it allows any red links or unlinked entries but most of the more abused ones tend not to.

Purging redlinks from the list of anti-virus software, or any other lists of products, is not normally considered controversial. In fact, there is a particularly good reason to do it for AV products because some fake anti-virus and security packages exist which seek to damage or compromise people's PCs. We would not want to accidentally risk having an entry for such a fake application which might be seen as legitimising it. Of course, I have no reason to suspect that Sourcenext is any such thing. All I am saying is that we need to make sure that the list only contains information which we absolutely know is genuine and that means we need verifiability with third party reliable references. If we get that, then that also covers notability and the item can have an article. So, I hope you see how an item without an article is nearly always an item that should not be on the list.

I think you are misunderstanding the bit about delinking. I think that refers to red links where the text of the link is still necessary to the article. I don't think it refers to list entries. Remember, that Wikipedia is not a directory and the list articles are not intended to include everything. They are intended to group related Wikipedia articles. I appreciate that they are not always understood in that way, because they do look a lot like directories, and that this means that a lot of things get added in good faith which then get removed. There is nothing personal in any of this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with what you're saying, at least where it applies to obvious spam and fake software. I have no first-hand knowledge of Sourcenext either, so I don't know if it falls into either of these categories. I am *not* making a case for Sourcenext here. However, generally speaking, I wonder if there is room on these lists for software that is good software but may not <yet> be notable enough to warrant its own article. In other words, I think you can have verifiability that an entry in a software list is *not* fake/spam even though it may not have enough notability to warrant its own article.--Brian Pence (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire to try do this but I don't think it is possible. The problem is that we can't start making value judgements as to what is good or likely to become notable. There is no way to do this fairly and consistently. If you were to apply the same idea to articles on unsigned pop bands or new political and religious viewpoints then we would quickly be in a complete mess with many things that claim to be good and/or on their way to fame being examined according to very subjective criteria.

The advantage of the current method is that it is as objective as possible. If we come across an article on a controversial and subjective subject (e.g. some strange theory of Astrology) we don't need to determine whether it is good or likely to become well known later. All we have to do is look at how much solid coverage it has right now. That is something that can be fairly evaluated regardless of our own opinions on the subject.

Returning to software, I would also like to point out that notability and goodness do not have to go together as is proved by the fact that we have an article on Microsoft Bob. ;-)

Wikipedia is popular but we should not forget that the rest of the internet exists. There are many things that don't belong in an encyclopaedia, or don't belong yet. There are plenty of other places where they can be listed, documented and discussed. Wikipedia will still be there if they achieve notability later. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Fricke

It was a pleasure tag-teaming with you on Aaron Fricke. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Fricke

Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spotting hoaxes

Hi Daniel,

I am a new Wiki user, but have been browsing for a long time. I notice you spend a lot of time sniffing out 'hoaxes'. Can I ask you how you check if things are genuine? What makes some internet resources more reliable than others? What about written resources such as newspapers and magazines that feature an article that isn't found anywhere on the internet?

The reason I ask this is because I recently read an interview with a British television presenter who was talking about a new project he is working on. I thought this would be a perfect opportunity for me to add my first Wiki edit. Howvere, when I came to look at the article on here, i noticed that you had removed the reference that I was going to put on as 'vandalism'. I searched online to see if I could find a mention of the TV show and I couldn't, but it features in a Ntional Magazine. Surely more reliable than lots of the questionable internet resources?! Your comments would be appreciated.

Best wishes, and looking forward to editing! Bowlerhatstand (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The verifiability says that everything here must be verifiable. This means that the most important thing is for you to have access to reliable references which demonstrate that what you write about is correct and to include the references so that other people can check it. That will avoid anything you write being mistaken for a hoax. It is also important to check the notability policy to make sure that what you are adding is the correct sort of thing to go into an encyclopaedia. I have put the standard welcome page on your talk page. That contains links to all the main things you need to get started. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CompleteFTP inclusion in lists.

You should read Wikipedia criteria here a little more carefully. Wikipedia quite clearly states that "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. ". CompleteFTP is verifiably a member of each listed group, and it is not unreasonable to expect that in the not so distant future it will satisfy the criteria for an article. I think you are being extremely unreasonable. Fair enough, delete the article, but it is quite reasonable for it to included in the lists. Bblackshaw (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Monkeys

The dictionary definition is quite clear. The term monkey has two meanings. One is a general meaning where the term monkey refers to any primate except for humans, lemurs and tarsiers. The other is a more specific meaning, which in addition to excluding humans, lemurs and tarsiers, also excludes apes. The newsreaders are not being ignorant when they refer to chimps as monkeys. They are simply using a more generic meaning of the term than you are used to. Why can't the article acknowledge the fact that the term has two very common meanings instead of dogmatically insisting that one meaning is correct and the other meaning is wrong? Slackergeneration (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you seem to have a problem understanding that dictionary entry. The only place in which that definition included apes was in its original usage in the 16th century, this was not even in English, but in Low German. This has no bearing on how it is used in English today and is only included in the dictionary to document the linguistic root of the word. There are 4 current usages listed. One excludes apes and the other three do not refer to primates at all and are not relevant.

Leaving that aside, lets see if there is any support for a second, wider, meaning by looking in a wider range of dictionaries: (all entries linked from [1]):

• Oxford Compact: Doesn't say.
• Encarta: Excludes apes.
• MW: Excludes apes.
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's: Doesn't say.
• Wiktionary: Excludes apes.
• Webster's New World: Has inclusion of some apes listed as a "loose" usage. Main definition excludes apes.
• Wordsmyth: Vague. Excludes some apes but seems to include others. (not sure how reliable a dictionary this is)
• American Heritage Dictionary: Excludes some apes explicitly and doesn't say about the rest
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Excludes some apes and notes that it "usually" excludes others.

From this is it clear that the more precise dictionaries (the ones that have etymology and many uses listed) exclude apes and that the children's dictionaries, concise dictionaries and informal on-line dictionaries tend not to make a distinction.

What I did find is [2], which is the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911. This shows that use of "monkey" to include some and possibly all apes was the main use at that time and that the more modern use was secondary. Since then the wider definition has fallen by the wayside but survives as a "loose" or colloquial use which some dictionaries include and others do not.

So where does that leave us? Well, it does support your claim that a second usage exists but it also shows that is is drastically secondary to the current primary usage which excludes apes. I have changed the article to say "considered incorrect" rather than just "incorrect" but I don't think we can go any further than that.

--DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The WM defenition is as follows: a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers ; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes. The first half of that definition which reads a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers does not exclude apes; the only primate mammals it excludes are humans, lemurs, and tarsiers. It is only in the second half of the definition where it explains what the term especially refers to that apes are excluded. A good analogy would be to define the term American as a person from the Americas, especially a citizen of the United States as contrasted with other countries in the Americas. Does that mean it is incorrect to refer to someone from South America as American? No. It simply means you are invoking the broader definition of the term. Slackergeneration (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at. There is a lack of clarity in the MW definition which I previously missed. By using "especially" they don't say under what circumstances apes might not be excluded but they do leave the door open to the possibility without stating it clearly. They really should have worded it better. [3] has a much clearer way of setting it out. I don't think that alters the result of the survey above in which almost all the dictionaries that offer a precise definition exclude apes in their primary usage but I will add that the term is still in use. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Underground London

Note: As this discussion is wider than just discussing my contributions and many people are involved I have moved it too Talk:Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please go there to continue the discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

steve kim FYI

FYI on Steve Kim; the prod tag was removed, and I don't think I can put it back, so I submitted an AFD with your reasons. tedder (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're right about not being able to put the prod back. AfD is the way to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't it be put back if it was a bad-faith removal? In any case, somehow we should figure out how to have two !votes in the AfD- one for each of us. I may give reasons so you can keep your reasons and !vote yourself, or you can feel free to edit my nom if you wish. tedder (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith on deproddings. It may be that the author feels that fixing the confusion between North and South Korea was enough,although clearly it isn't. There is no harm in having AfD on it. If nothing else, it proves to the World that everything gets a fair hearing on Wikipedia rather than being deleted on one person's say-so. I wouldn't worry about the vote thing. Unless a nominator explicitly says that they are neutral it is reasonable for anybody to assume that they support deletion, besides it isn't a vote in a strict counting sense. If the deletion argument makes sense and no valid rebuttal is given then it will be deleted even if we are in the minority. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

George Zinkhan

Sorry, when I removed the PROD I mistakenly said that it was a Speedy. Sorry about that. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I did put speedy on it but then I realised that this was wrong and took it off again. Are you going to make it into a redirect? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

MikeyCMS

Hello, Mr. Rigal! WHy did you delete the Classic Meta Show page? How did you find it?

Thats All!

--72.81.176.234 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it myself. I am not an administrator so I can't delete anything. I did recommend it for deletion because it was a very poor quality article that did not prove that the show was notable enough for inclusion. It had been tagged as needing improvement for a long time but nobody was doing anything to improve it. It was given a fair chance. The deletion was discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Classic_Metal_Show. Everybody agreed that it should be deleted. I would recommend against recreating it, at least until you are sure that you understand the policies on what can be included in Wikipedia and how to prove sufficient notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Classic Metal Show

THEY ARE NOT NON-NOTABLE! YOU HELPED DELETE THEM AND YOU KNOW IT JUST WAS WELL AS YOU WANT TO! YOU DIRECTED PEOPLE AND TAGGED IT FOR DELETION! DONT TELL ME SUCH "PORK PIES"!

ADIOS!

MikeyCMS