User talk:Dan1679/Archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==Welcome==

Hello, Dan1679/Archive001, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

hello me!

I'm new here, hope my few minor edits so far are deemed ok. If not, let me know where I went wrong and how I can improve. Thanks!

194.83.172.81

You're right. I looked back through a years worth of contributions and there wasn't a single valid edit from the IP. Since its talk page says its a shared IP, I'm not going to block indefinately, but I'll put a three month block on and see if we get any complaints. Hopefully we can get someone in charge there who'll put a stop to it. Thanks for pointing that out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Lakathryn Allyse

Yea, if someone happens to be doing cleanup and something apepars, it could be deleted quickly. If you look at the list you will see that there is a backlog of articles to be considered. So it all depends on timing. Enjoy editing. Vegaswikian 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Lakathryn Allyse is a beautiful young woman about to come into her inheritance. Perhaps.....

Thomas S. Monson

Hey, I appreciate that you didn't start a tag war, and I really do understand where you come from. I hope you understand my point of view too, and I'll start over the next few days to document and cite sources for the areas you addressed. I really do appreciate you not starting a war, because I don't really feel like getting into one of those. User:Pahoran513, 3 April 2006

Cynthia McKinney

What is your problem, "Dan"? If you have issues with people's opinions, find someone that posted one. I did not say Cynthia McKinney WAS insane. I said that most people believe that she is insane. Learn the difference between an opinion and a fact, idiot.

And quit using your "wizard" status to try and scare people. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to let the public perfect these articles. If you start banning people from offerering their input, you will have destroyed the very spirit of the online encyclodpedia you are overzealously patrolling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.177.20 (talkcontribs) April 09, 2006.

Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, especially unsourced opinions. Articles here must be written in a neutral point of view, and Must be cited. If you want readers to conclude that Ms. McKinney is mentally imbalanced, present the facts of her behavior in an impartial, impassionate tone and let the facts speak for themselves. There is also no need to resort to personal attacks, as you have on my Talk page. If you have a problem with a user's edit, take it up calmly on their talk page as I am attempting to do here with you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Cynthia McKinney is mentally imbalanced. You know it. I know it. The rest of the United States, with the possible exception of the majority of her kooky district, knows it. I also know that if a poll were taken, the results would back my claim. Anyway, I chose my word carefully. I said that most people believe that Cynthia McKinney is insane, which is indeed a fact. People like you, who edit the encyclopedia for the sake of politcal correctness, do a disservice to the throngs of information seekers out there. Hiding the fact that Cynthia McKinney is crazy is like claiming the U.S. doesn't have an immigration problem. But you would probably paper that over, too.
You, sir, should get a grip on reality.
Sincerely,
Erik Hansen 68.174.177.20 (talkcontribs)
Mr. Hansen - I have since found a Wikipedia style guide that best describes the problem with the statement you made on Ms. McKinney's article. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also, may I remind you that personal attacks/flaming has no place in this encyclopedia. By resorting to name-calling and other personal insults against me, you are violating WP policy. Please see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I am perfectly willing to further discuss how Ms. McKinney's article can be improved, including how best to cite particular viewpoints or add further information if we could keep it in a civil tone. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Notes Removal

AbsolutDan,

I'm working on removing them, but have a question or two -- could you see my talk page?

Thanks, --Qwerpoiu 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Re: Javed Malik

I have no idea what you're talking about. If look at the page history, you'll see that it was an anon that removed the tags. I'm getting tired of being falsely accused of vandalism, so please try to be more careful next time, thanks. —Xezbeth 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Dan Trying hard to make my phpWebSite edits conform

(I have removed personal details from the post below) --Dan

Hi Dan,

I have added a bunch of info to the phpWebSite page and have used the Wikipedia articles on Joomla! and TikiWiki as a guide. (Both are good articles and useful CMS.)

I am trying to write in a NPOV but am finding some things a bit confusing.

I want to add some of the categories present in TikiWiki and would appreciate your advice.

Thanks Peter

See User_talk:Pspicerwensley#PhpWebSite for a response --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks AbsolutDan

Thanks for your speedy reply Dan

Having read your comments I can see that there is definately too much information at present.

The difficulty I am having is writing in an "encyclopedic" style - or should that be wikipedic?

I can see that there is too much information and that excising the third party modules would be a good start.

I think I shall excise the Third Party Modules section and instead say that there are a number of third party modules across the range of component categories and then add a link to the phpWebSite official website information about third party modules then people could find out about them there.

--Pspicerwensley 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


cannabis strains linkspammer

209.51.82.222 has returned. I've left him a spam3; as you might have more of the pages he hit on your watchlist, if you see him continuing give me a heads up and i'll block. (thanks, btw, for cleaning up his mess last time.)--Heah? 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello i was not trying to spam. My site is non-profit and has not ads at all. I make no money off it. I saw other similar sites to mine and figured it was ok to add my link, especially after content from my site was put up on wikipedia's list of cannabis strains. I thought that allowed me to put my link up as a reference. As for the other links on other cannabis pages, i see other forums/message board sites doing the same thing and I don't understand what's wrong with it. How can you allow some sites but not others, and some of the ones you allow are PROFIT sites with ads everywhere. MINE HAS NO ADS AND IS NONPROFIT!! i really don't understand your policy about posting links.

For example on the cannabis page of wikipedia there is this link:

  • Strain's Bible - A list about the different cannabis strains that exist, with grower reports and photos

How is that any different than my site? I have a strain guide and photos and grow/smoke reports and message boards just like that site. So whats the difference? Also, we even have a link to wikipedia on our home page!! And on the cannabis strains page there are links just to cannabis forums, not even strain guides, i do not understand this at all. i was not trying to spam, i just thought you were allowed to post relevant links if you weren't a commerical website or profit. i'd understand that i put too many links up but can i at least be able to have a link on the cannabis strains page because my site is extremeley relevant to that, as well as the cannabis page. 209.51.82.222 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi I'm a new Wikipedian from Natick... just popped in to say hello to a neighbor: Flag of Massachusetts.svg Flag of the United States.svg 20px Merlinus (talk)

  • Hi I Am Marc:

I was recently married to my lovely wife; We have lived together for several years already...

  • We love cats (3 currently own us)... Jeffy(15), Echo(6) & Gizmo(3). All sleep with us in the big bed and no room to move an inch.
  • I was Disabled in a 1993 (Coma)/ and am very slowly recovering. It's tough going out sometimes, though with friends I still do. I have a few supportive friends.
  • I am an "Unenrolled voter." Democrat/ Republicans, I don't care, whoever serves makes my life better in the long run I vote for!
  • Avid reader. Has collection of many hundreds of rare books. Especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.
  • Avid Music collector (2,500 albums).

I am what I am I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples' rights and jobs for American citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in my state today and support Universal health care, I would be dead if I did not have it. I am an idiot about Internet social skills. I hope that the Immigration Reform bill will protect disabled citizens who wish to work like myself first before considering allowing new people to come here. I was searching for an internet forum to be my outlet to express my needs, but found that Wikipedia is not best suited for that. I'm brushing up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, and slowly starting to begin contributing again. Current book and CD

  • Current Book Jack Whyte: "Uther"
  • Current CD Faves:
    • Warren Zevon... "Life'll Kill Ya"
    • Howlin' Wolf: "Greatest Hits"
  • Latest Flick: "Charles II: The Last King"

Flag of Massachusetts.svg Flag of the United States.svg 20px Merlinus (talk)

Age of consent

Hi, you removed the link to the Iowa age of consent article from the Age of consent in North America#Further_reading section. - This link keeps coming back. - I've removed it once or twice from the main AoC page and after it being reposted for the Xth time I moved it to the USA section and added the "it's an opion piece" comment in order to stop the mild edit wars.

Let's see if it comes back. ;) lol --Monotonehell 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Malibu / Monte Carlo

YOu GUYS ARE IDIOTS! THATS A MONTE CARLO! Although it is a 4 door it's STILL a MONTE CARLO! LOOK AT IT! find the source! The only SS's they made in that era in an SS type were MANTE CARLO'S AND EL CAMINO'S WIth REgard TO MY 80 MALIBU. AND THAT BROWN ONE IS CLEARLY NOT AN 80! you really need to know your cars and dont threaten to block me! It's a MONTE CARLO!

-ADN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazzman182@juno.com (talkcontribs) 30 April 2006.

Hello ADN, I will be the first to admit that I am no car expert. However, the uploader of the image in question seems fairly convinced he took a picture of a Malibu. If you look closely, it is marked "Malibu" between the front driver-side door and the wheel well.
If you're convinced that the image is not a Malibu, the proper thing to do is to either:
  1. Remove the image completely from the Chevrolet Malibu page and explain your reasoning on the article's talk page, or
  2. Explain your reasoning on the article's talk page and let someone else correct the image.
Simply changing the image's caption looks like vandalism. Some of your previous edits have been deemed unhelpful to Wikipedia, so I hope you can understand why your change appeared to be simply vandalism as well.
Now, regardless of fact here, you have engaged in personal attacks on my Talk page. Regardless of whether your statements contain fact, personal attacks of any kind are not permitted at Wikipedia. It is important to remain calm and make constructive comments when engaging in discussion. Consider this your final warning - if you continue in either vandalising pages or engaging in personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Car-related linkspam

Thanks for reverting much of the car-related linkspam; keep up the good work! --Alan Au 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


hello Dan

I think some people were a little harsh with you at Wikipedia_Is_Far_Too_Soft_On_Vandals_2. I just wanted to write and give you moral support. If you ever have a vandal problem, or need any other help, feel free to contact me. I can often be found in the Esperanza IRC chatroom. Cheers! --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


External Links Removed?

Would you mind letting me know why you removed all the resource links posted from 67.103.169.42. I think the posts were reverted last night around 9pm. The links are not commercial and do not link to a commercial site. The links I've posted send Wikipedia users to the site for one of the most respected not-for-profits in the country, the American Academy of Achievement. The site honors achievers from every corner of the world and features extensive resources. All of them include photo galleries, video interviews, achiever bios and profiles, as well as printed interviews. Each achiever has been inducted into the American Academy of Achievement as a member.

What steps do I need to take so that I can continue with adding resources and not be labelled a "spammer?" Also, how can I go about retrieving the links I've already added? I can contribute to the content if needed. 67.103.169.42 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Academy of Achievement

Thank you for your input.

I would welcome the opportunity to add content to each of these sites for achievers.

Is there a possibility of adding a "famous quotes" section to each site, adding quotes featured in Academy of Achievement interviews? How would I do this in a technical sense?

To add a quotes section, would I have to obtain permission from the editor of each site? If so, how do I do this?

Also, by adding content, will I then be able to add the external links to the Academy? Would I have to limit them to just the interview and photo gallery links, or can I still link to the biography and profile pages as well?

I know this is a lot of questions, but I am new to this process and don't want to step on any toes.

The Achievement website is a great resource and would act as a valuable supplemental tool for people wanting to access additional information.

Thanks for your time.

Best,

Sara Berlin451 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Links

Hi Dan, thanks for contacting me rather than just deleting links and not saying anything! I just wanted to ask why you removed the seatenthusiasts.co.uk link but didn't remove the seatcupra.net link? They are fairly similar websites, but both with their own unique content

Also the leoncupra.net is a general website that I found, that I know a lot of people find very useful for things about the Leon.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruCido (talkcontribs) 6 May 2006.

You have been nominated

I have nominated you for admin status. Go to the link to accept or decline nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AbsolutDan Yanksox 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I nominated you since I believe that you can contribute greatly to wikipedia. But if you feel you are not fit, then decline. It's your decision, regardless of what you do, Wikipedia will benefit. I think you would make a great admin, you are thoughtful, precise, and knowledgable. I am tired... Yanksox 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: Are you storing the nomination away for a later date? Yanksox 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's like a pocket veto, it's killed after a week. Yanksox 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Why do I keep getting negative comments on my talk page?

????24.165.116.230 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Kudos

I absolutely love your offer of help message [1]; I'd never thought of linking someone directly to a new section on my talk and its so much friendlier than typical warning messages :) Does it work often or do you find it gets ignored most of the time? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


take-over-transcription NKT

Your entry at the talk site of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kadampa_Tradition:Take_Over_Transcription

What special you wish to have for a varification? The man who has this tape and did the transcript wrote to me that he has just a limited internet access and asked me to get out what is needed. You can reply at my user page too. Then I try to get the wished verification. Thank your for asking for this verification! --Kt66 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts for Radar detectors and Valentine 1

AD,

You have classified two of the links added today as linkspam.

I don't see it that way. Each link provided unique content rich material that has not been monetized.

What's up with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.169.189.130 (talkcontribs) 10 May 2006.

Antislavery Literature Project

AbsolutDan,

You have removed several links to the Antislavery Literature Project from different articles related to slavery, apparently on grounds that these were commercial links.

This is a public education project involving scholars from different universities. It operates from Arizona State University and runs off the Eserver at Iowa State University. Many libraries carry links to this site. The goal of the Project is to provide high-quality, authenticated primary source materials to the interested public, students, and scholars. We share a common goal with Wikipedia of providing good information for educational purposes. In many cases, the Project's digitized texts -- for John Pierpont's poetry, for example, which links you removed -- are unique on the Internet. To remove links deprives Wikipedia readers of access to primary source materials that explicate or expand on the article they have read.

With this explanation, it would be appreciated if you restored the links you removed.

Thank you,

Joe Lockard English Department Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talkcontribs) 10 May 2006.

Dear AbsolutDan,
You responded as follows:
Dear Jlockard,
On nearly any notable topic one could find a wealth of other websites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article; however we much endeavor to keep the articles' external links section down to a bare minimum. To this effect, myself and other volunteers must regularly traverse many articles and prune links.
One the primary methods used to determine whether a link should stay or go is the method in which it was added to the article(s). In this case (as I mentioned above) the links to the Antislavery Literature Project were added "bare" (with no additional content added to the article) across a multitude of pages. This raises a major red flag; had it not been me that reverted the changes, someone else likely would have.
Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external website into an article is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. You may also wish to consider adding the link to a smaller number of articles - preferrably one main article on the topic.
I hope this helps to explain the reason these links were removed. In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links:
  • WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 2 in this guideline)
  • WP:EL External Links guidelines
  • WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines

The addition of links was entirely consistent with the External Links guidelines, particularly section 5. Together with Documenting the American South, located at the University of North Carolina and often provided as a Wikipedia reference link, the Antislavery Literature Project is a major online resource for the literatures of slavery. It provides accurate and authoritative texts that directly relate to the article subject. Eliminating such links does active disservice to Wikipedia readers.
In eliminating the links to John Pierpont's poetry, you apparently failed to notice that I contributed the entire content of the article, one that had previously been a brief stub. Advice to contribute content to Wikipedia would seem gratuitous.


Joe Lockard
English Department
Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talkcontribs) 11 May 2006.
AbsolutDan,
I have restored some of the links to slavery-related articles that you deleted. All of these links are in conformity with published Wikipedia policy on external links. To ensure that their contribution to the article is beyond question, in a couple cases sentences have been added to the text to explicate their meaning for general readers without specialized subject knowledge (see Black Canadians, William Still articles). Other links (e.g. the Henderson, Kentucky article) will be restored as time permits. Wikipedia readers from Henderson have a reasonable right to access electronic resources that inform them that their small town too has a literary history. Still other links will be made (e.g. to the Noah Porter article) as the Project publishes new texts and sees opportunities to contribute to Wikipedia's work.
A larger question lies in discrimination between educational electronic resources. Your edits removed links to Antislavery Literature Project materials, for example, even while leaving links in the same article to Project Gutenberg materials. Due to the focus of our digitization work the Project actually has better collections than Gutenberg in this specialized area. It does not appear to make solid editorial sense to eliminate the better source while keeping the lesser one, only because the latter is better-known.
Thank you for the invitation to contribute further content to Wikipedia. As time and the opportunities of work coincidence permit, we shall.
Joe Lockard
English Department
Arizona State University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlockard (talkcontribs) 12 May 2006.
Note: as this discussion is becoming increasingly circular, I am disengaging. I'm still concerned that, since Mr. Lockard has a vested interest in his project, he will add more links than is necessary for the betterment of Wikipedia. However, since his project is academic in nature, I don't feel his additions are outright harming WP. I'll leave it up to future editors to determine the value of the links he adds on an article-by-article basis. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


O.K. time to block 72.24.69.21

You warned him the 4th time on May 5, and he vandalized again May 11. He may not read his own Talk page, but he'll sure get the message when he finds his IP won't Wiki.Sbharris 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


NLPES

AbsolutDan: I have restored, temporarily, the content on the talk page, and added the following note so that members of our group would know what is going on:

NOTE: We would like to leave this content up until the end of the month. I do not disagree with AbsolutDan's comments that all of you can see. I could argue that the betterment of the group is discussing the value of NLPES as described in the WikiPedia article, however, that is nitpicking. We are looking into alternatives. Ken Levine, Texas Klevine 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Klevine 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NLPES"

This page was last modified 04:49, 23 April 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klevine (talkcontribs) 11 May 2006.


Vandalism

No problem at all. IrishGuy 00:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Hugh Miller

Dan, I noticed you reverted an external link from the Hugh Miller page which had been placed 07:20, 10 May 2006 by 82.28.33.196

I've looked at the externally linked website (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cmc_hugh_miller.htm) and it appears to be a reasonably well-presented biography of Hugh Miller, and a useful addition to the page. So I've undone your reversion - hope you don't mind.

However, I have noticed that this unregistered user seems to have put about ten links from various places in Wikipedia to other pages on the same website - is this why you removed it? If so, please accept my apologies - I have no strong feelings about this particular link, so we can remove it if you like... Euchiasmus 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove the external link in the Hugh Miller article (and in the many other articles to which it was added) because it was spammed. When I go on a link-removing spree, my intentions are only to remove links that are added in violation of the guidelines in WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. My task is complete once the linkspam is removed. If future editors later determine a link to be useful to a particular article, then it's no longer spam and I welcome them to re-add it. Thus, I have no problem at all with the fact that you re-added it to Hugh Miller because (unlike the spammer) you:
  1. Appear to contribute more than just external links (i.e. you're not here solely to promote a site or sites by spamming)
  2. Took the time to explain the value of the external link in relation to the article rather than just adding the link "silently"
  3. Only added the same link to one article that you felt it was relevant to.
I recommend taking only one further step: you might want to add the same explanation you left on my talk page to the talk page of the Hugh Miller article (Talk:Hugh Miller). This way other future spam-removers will see that there has been some intelligent dicussion about the link and that it shouldn't be automatically re-removed. Cheers! --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've now done that. And thanks for the explanation... Euchiasmus 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)