User talk:Daggerstab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Daggerstab, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian {T C @} 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Petar Danov[edit]

There's a discussion at Talk:Petar Danov#Correct romanization of the name which would benefit from your further input. -Will Beback 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


How about some kind of lock to prevent future real estate spam? Pozdravi, --Paffka 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi! It's not the same collage, but it definitely requires the parent images to be sources. I'll leave a note for the uploader when I have more time. east.718 at 16:45, May 21, 2008


Hi! Is it possible for this licensed image to be uploaded as fair use in Wikipedia for the article of Bulgaria or if uploaded it must only illustrate only the article of the painter or of the picture itself? --Gligan (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not possible for Bulgaria. I'm not sure about the article about Vladimir Dimitrov - Maistora - only if there is sufficient commentary in the text on the picture itself, I think. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. --Daggerstab (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, thank you: ) I am not going to expand the article for V. Dimitrov, so I will not upload it. --Gligan (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello,Daggerstab!I am really sorry that I have not followed strictly the rules of WikiCommons and that I have uploaded files without the right lisence.I want also to apologize for the work that i have created for you, you have the right to delete all images that I have uploaded that do not meet the rules and standards of Wiki.I have to ask you ,because I want to know, why images which I have pointed by whom they are created and the websites I have found them in are also copyright violetions-I have marked them all as GDFL.Thank you , for the patience and good luck!GvmBG (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your apology is accepted. :)
It seems that you have misunderstood the way copyright and licensing work. Putting a license tag to an image (i.e. the GFDL tag) means that its author has explicitly agreed to publish the image under that license. You can't put a GFDL or Creative Commons tag to an image that you have taken from somewhere else if that image hadn't been published under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. Some of the images I've marked as copyright violations were from sites that explicitly prohibited publishing these images elsewhere without the written consent of the author. I guess it was more luck than design, but you actually managed to upload a few free images - the ones by Nikola Gruev (we have a permission by the author and a special template for them) and commons:Image:Plovdiv pink.jpg that had been published under Creative Commons - Attribution - Share Alike (in the end of the blog post there's "Снимките се предоставят под Creative Commons лиценз." with a link to the summary of the license). I hope you understood my explanation. If there is something unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. --Daggerstab (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An Invite to join Novels WikiProject[edit]

Book collection.jpg

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

As you have shown an interest in Steven Erikson we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.
You might like to take an extra interest in our Fantasy task force
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Alan16 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Steven Erikson[edit]

You did some editing on the Steven Erikson page, and I was wondering what you would think about the idea of nominating for Good Article status. Alan16 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What would I think? "Oh, my, that would be an interesting discussion." :) On a more serious note, I know that the criteria for a good article are less stringent than the featured article criteria, but right at the moment the article has a few problems, the most crucial one being the sources/references. If I were you, I would focus on getting the most out of the article and the review, as they are the closest to mainstream "reliable sources" the article has. Some of the other sources/statements pairs make me uncomfortable, e.g. the Stephen Donaldson quote. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Otherwise, don't expect much help from me - I edit the English Wikipedia sporadically. The Steven Erikson article is in my watchlist, so I when noticed the recent activity, I decided to have a look at it and then to clean it up a bit. --Daggerstab (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll have a look a the sources. Can I ask what's wrong with the Donaldson quote? Alan16 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why were you so destructive of all my hard work!!???[edit]

You completely destroyed all my hard work on the "Due Diligence" entry!

Why did you do this?

If I put all that hard work back into the entry, are you going to destroy it again?

Are you an expert in due diligence? Do you have the Certified Due Diligence Professional Credential, such as I do?

You set back the industry and discipline of due diligence by several decades by destroying all this information! Boatanchors (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No information has been destroyed. As you seem to have found out, your revisions have been saved in the article history.
My reasons for reverting your changes were dully stated in the edit summary: "breaks style and formatting; original research and/or un-encyclopedic content; promotion of and copying text from".
Your credentials are irrelevant in the case. I suggest making yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies, starting from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of style about section headings and capitalization.
I also suggest that you avoid hyperbole. Most experienced Wikipedia users are neither dumb, nor easily intimidated. --Daggerstab (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Please also read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Daggerstab (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)