User talk:DanielRigal/2015

edit conflict

potato doesn't belong in that article

This user is a recent changes patroller.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

Two reasons:

1. You are putting in content without valid sourcing. You need to read WP:RS.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

added a link pointing to Telugu

Ya. M. Sverdlova State Owned Enterprise

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)

Incoherent or not?

Hallo, I noticed that in this edit you added {{incoherent}} to an undoubtedly incoherent bundle of rubbish, but unfortunately the template doesn't mean "incoherent" in that sense: it displays as "This article or section lacks a single coherent topic", which was one of the few problems the article didn't have! I'm not sure which template is the best for "This is so badly written as to be virtually unintelligble and shows that the contributing editor can't write English well enough to be contributing to the English Wikipedia and has very little idea about what is suitable content for an encyclopedia article", but it's not this one. Ascii002 has done great work in cleaning up this article, and others from the same editor. I'm wearying of trying to help him: one more really bad edit and it'll be ANI. Thanks for your help. PamD 07:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've realised that Twinkle is misleading about this template: see Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#.7B.7Bincoherent.7D.7D_wrongly_summarised PamD 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll try to remember not to use it again. It is a pity it doesn't mean what I thought it did though. Having something like that would be useful. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DanielRigal and @PamD:, I've been bedeviled by this as well, and finally decided to do something about it. Please see Template talk:Incoherent#Unmerge request and by all means weigh in on it (or just vent). Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It isn't Twinkle that's misleading, it's the template itself. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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.

Devasish Roy

added a link pointing to Rani

Harish Chandra (raja)

added a link pointing to Rani

Kalindi (rani)

added a link pointing to Rani

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

my wikikittten edit to Guildford

Hi DanielRigal, sorry about my foolish edit to Guildford. Where I live, country town means a town in the country; I didn't realise it has a special meaning in England until I clicked the wikilink after you reverted my edit. Thanks for gently correcting my ignorance.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. In the UK we give lots of things strange names. Black Rod is a man with a stick who is not black or called Rod, although there is no reason why a future Black Rod could not be. Most famously the Lord Privy Seal is not a Lord, a privy or a seal. The current incumbent is a Baroness. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

lol, thanks for enlightening me on other English eccentricities....Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article Nicky_Clarke

Hi, I proposed the article to be deleted due to "This article has notability issue. Is it worthy to include each and every person in Wikipedia?". I will let you about issues with other articles if I have enough time with me. 18:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you think you will put notable articles that I have created up for deletion in blatant retaliation for my putting a non-notable article of yours up for deletion? That is a new and "interesting" way to get yourself blocked from editing. Seriously, you get one warning for this and then you get reported! We don't need people on Wikipedia who are only here for spamming and troublemaking. We get rid of them quickly. You need to decide if you want to stay and cut the crap if you do. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Adguard

Oh dear! That wasn't good. I've disabled it from running on Wikipedia now. I couldn't figure out why that was showing for me on the page earlier and I tried disabling it, but I didn't realise it had managed to actually inject that text into the page... Thanks!   JaJaWa |talk  22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Selim Belmaachi

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've deleted the page, salted it against recreation, and blocked the people involved. It looks like there was some sockpuppetry going on, so if you see that name pop up anywhere else, let me know. If it's a new account it'll likely be a sock so I'll block it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Vaughan Bell

I'm not sure what to do with the Vaughan Bell article, see Talk:Vaughan Bell. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure either but I have added another reference that makes me think that it could be notable and put a note on the talk page. I am still not 100% convinced but I am not going to put it up for deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bahanaboy malicious edits in year 1985

Hello, do you know how to revert more than one edit? I have just noticed that editor (Bahanaboy) deliberately is destroying my edits and other editors'. Besides, his Minion War has been reverted twice so far, and he keeps adding it again to the article "1985". But the Minion War is only one of his edits that destroys other editors' work. I spent lots of time to list names in alphabetical order, and then he mixed everything up. Of course I could repair it one by one, but he has made many edits, and repairing them would take too much time. His all edits from June 19, 2015 on should be reverted and the point is I don't know how to revert them all with one move. Editors should stand up against such behavior. Could you, please help me deal with his malicious activity. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

When you diff multiple entries there is an option to restore the older entry or to undo multiple entries by the same user. I think there is a permission called rollbackers (or something like that) which is needed for the second one but I think anybody can do the first. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny of colours

I ended up deleting and salting the page. I found one new news source but not anything that would overturn the prior AfD. The other material used on the page didn't really show any promise either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I am not very surprised. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt because I am sympathetic to the story they are trying to tell but they have not yet managed to break the notability barrier for the film. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a film on this subject could do so. It is something I could imagine myself sitting down to watch, say, if it was shown in an art gallery. I have suggested to the author of the article that he could add a little content about street art in Iran to other articles but to take care with referencing and not use it as a coatrack to promote the film. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diane Robin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Relic, NCIS and Chris Columbus. 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) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UT

Diane Robin has appeared in over 100 television and films. Her credits can be verified on IMDB which is the industry standard to check credits.Also information in Variety, TV guide, Actors access, google, tube, twitter.There are many pictures which could be included in the article, how can they be downloaded?Please list her birthdate as July 23,no year necessary.

No. The year is relevant and needs to be included. It is not acceptable to remove somebody's birth date from a biographical article out of vanity or censorship. Also, proper reliable references are needed. The article is fairly certain to be deleted in its current state even though I tried to clean it up. Removing good content (the date) and adding nonsense in the references section just makes it even more likely to happen. There is nothing you need to download. Just find reliable references as links and add them. I can tidy them up if you don't get the ref tags right. The important thing is to provide them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wallace Group Edits

Hi, thank you for your edit! I was worried I might have committed some copyvio.

I noticed you said you made the article "inteligable" (think you mean intelligible), but you've edited out a crucial part of the Wallace Group. According to the source 2 and 3 of the article, "The University is part of the Wallace Group of seven of the best sporting universities in the UK" (Loughborough) and "Part of the Wallace Group of seven of the best sporting universities in the UK" (St Andrews), I was wondering what your reason was for editing that part out?

Thanks! (Apologies if this is the incorrect place to leave a message)

Kioj156 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the correct place to leave a message.

The neutrality policy means that we need to avoid using WP:peacock terms like "best" or "elite" except where they have very specific meanings that can be backed up with references. I removed "sporting universities" as that isn't a phrase that seems meaningful to me. It sort of implies a "university of sport", which is not what is meant. I vaguely of know what you do mean but I can't think of a good phrase to say it.

Anyway, you can add that stuff back if you reword it a bit to avoid copyright issues and make sure it is clear and neutral. Just because it wasn't perfect the first time doesn't mean that you can't try again. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeh I remember reading that policy, but thought that if two sources said it then it would be OK. I'll try to look up more sources to back it up, but there's not much on the Wallace Group..the sources I do find, I'm not sure would be suitable for Wikipedia. I thought the universities phrased it quite well and couldn't think of rewording it better so just left it as it is.

I'll have another go at editing it in the morning and try to phrase it better.

If you happen to think of a better phrase, please edit it in. Cheers! (feel free to remove this from your talk page)

Kioj156 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Daniel. I appreciate that you have a userbox that tells me the answer to my question is "no", so my apologies for disturbing you. That said, the box has been there a long time so I was hoping you might feel differently about it these days. Would you be prepared to be an administator? It looks like the tools might come in handy for some of the work you do around here and I'd be happy to nominate you if you were willing to run. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That is very kind of you but I'm happier as I am. I like the fact that I can't do any serious damage without somebody else checking first (e.g. I don't get to delete things just because they look bad to me.). I am the sort of systems administrator who spends as little time in a root shell as possible. I know this is not the same sort of administration but I feel the same way about it. I guess the one thing that would make me reconsider would be if there was such a shortage of admins that it was hurting Wikipedia badly. I am not aware of that being the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, DanielRigal. Thanks for staying on top of the Selim Belmaachi hoax and spam fest. I have added to the SPI case and blocked and deleted/salted the articles. I've also left a message at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#145 hoax photos requesting deletion of the 145 Selim Belmaachi hoax photos there. (Just so we won't need to tag them all individually). And I hope a Commons administrator will do a mass block of the numerous sock accounts there. I appreciate you making me aware of the problem through your tags and talk page comments. Please let me know directly if you run into any further problems with this mess. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It is good to know that it will all get sorted out but I can't help puzzling over what the point of it was in the first place. Normally when I see spam or hoaxes I have an idea of why somebody would want to do it but I am confused by this one. Initially I assumed it was vanity but given some of the dodgy things that he was getting linked to I wonder if it could have been something else. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've got them all here and at Commons (so far). I agree that it's strange, but it does appear to be an attempt to overwhelm search engines. I just read a book about public shaming on social media in which it describes how some consulting businesses are employed to produce lots of fake webpages -- eventually masking any previous pages which might show a person in a bad light. I don't know if this was that type of attempt (poorly done in my opinion) but it's a possibility. On the other hand, I think we've both seen enough weird trolling behaviors to give up trying to determine motivation. Sometimes trolling and vandalism seems to be just a sad compulsion. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		With appreciation for your vigilance in eliminating the vast cross-wiki Belmaachi hoax and sock farm, I award you this barnstar. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that and thank you for your help with this. It is very much appreciated. I am very glad to see that we have not had any trouble since. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read linked Manuals of Style before reverting content

When an editor, whether an anonymous editor or registered one, gives a reason for an edit, with a link to a Manual of Style, guideline or policy, it's usually best to read the thing rather than asking why. If you don't understand if it was applied correctly, ask at the MoS. In this case MOS:OPENPARA lists five things that should be listed in the opening paragraph. Place of birth is not listed. "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates." Sorry. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want you work on your edit summaries. Linking a policy without saying anything specific is likely to be misunderstood at least some of the time. TBH, I didn't even notice that that was an edit summary rather than something added automatically. So, yes, I missed it, and I'm sorry, but you should be aware that a lot of people are reading a lot of stuff very fast to keep on top of the bad edits and removing content that is not obviously bad looks bad at a first glance. Just a couple of extra words in the edit summary could avoid misunderstandings. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cornerstone

Daniel, your votes on these AfDs were actually quite insightful for me. I checked the sources, but I would have never known that Lincolnshire was local radio and not BBC national, as I'm not familiar enough with UK media details. I also appreciate the independent validation on the magazines (which I was fairly certain of). Anyhow, I wanted to explain my reasoning on the separate AfDs, but I don't want to keep interjecting myself into the discussions (as I think it looks pushy for noms to keep chiming in after a certain point).

Anyhow, as you've noticed, there's some technicalities involved, and while common sense would argue one way, strict interpretation might go the other, It is those technicalities I was concerned about, as when I discussed the matter before PROD, I got the sense it could go either way. Therefore, I didn't want to predicate any one AfD on any other. Also, as much as it might be nonsensical to keep albums and not the band (or vice versa), there is indeed policy handling that. NALBUMS states "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pursuing

Psst! I think you mean pursuing. Perusing is what he expected us to do with those ridiculous rants. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Curse this stupid spellchecker that corrects what I type not what I mean! ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

caiden Film

As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article. You're right that it's probably notable. But there must be references to show it. Please try to add them right away, because otherwise someone is very likely to immediately list the article for deletion at afd . DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense

What I added to the Black Hebrew Israelites page is not nonsense. Thats your opinion. What I added is a fact from the Bible. It applies here since the page references people of the Bible. The page seems to have been written by someone who has a tone of nonbelief. You obviously not being a Black Hebrew Israelite yourself, seem pretty concerned about the content of this page. Let the true Black Hebrew Israelites edit the page and you move on to editing something else. You're just proving the fact that you dont want the truth out there. If you weren't threatened by what I added or deleted, you wouldnt bother to continue this back and forth of your supposed correction. Its sad how our country continues to TRY and convince us so called African Americans that we have zero history. You should be ashamed of yourself. Our culture is waking up to the truth. I for one am sick and tired of the continuos lie and will stalk this page everytime you make an edit. Believe you me, I will not take this laying down. J Yah Yisrael (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to understand that on Wikipedia it is not about you (or me, for that matter) so I don't care whether you lie down, stand up or sing a song. What I do care about is that you added a load of stuff, which was just your opinion, without any reliable references. That is stuff you can put on your own blog if you want to but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place to air your own point of view. You will see from the page history that I wasn't the only person who removed your sermonising, and I played no part in the page getting protected, so your speculations as to my personal opinions are quite spectacularly irrelevant. You may have confused Wikipedia with free web hosting or social networking but it isn't either of those. I hope this helps. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Give you this for your work in the AFD area which can be tiresome and frustrating -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much appreciated. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A7

There is no speedy deletion criterion for products that corresponds to A7. It has been discussed several times, and been decisively rejected--see the archives of WT:CSDUnless it's G11, its necessary to use prod. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure of the exact situation. I knew it wasn't A7 so I pitched is as "like A7" in the hope that this was an acceptable use of the custom rationale but leaving it up to the deleting admin to decide. It seems bonkers to me that there is nothing like A7 for non-notable products and services when A7 can apply to the same non-notable companies that offer them but I wasn't trying to slide it in as an actual A7 knowing that it wasn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Radio Station Presenters

Right, I will let this go if you can do the same to EVERY radio station across the UK. It seems unfair you are for some station having names! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.65.188 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not threaten me! I can't edit every radio article but I will defend the ones on my watchlist from vandalism and I will follow vandals to other articles they vandalise to defend those too. You will probably be blocked very soon anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. If the name does NOT have a Wiki article linked, they should not be on the main article. With the names mentioned on the talk page of BBC Southern Counties Radio, I will be finding sources and creating pages for those not included. Yes, there are a number of Wiki articles that have name lists with no links, but they shouldn't be there! RadioAnorakUK (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not know of any specific instances myself but there probably are some notable presenters without articles and making those articles is exactly the right thing to do. Good luck. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite new to Wikipedia, but I have a great interest in radio so thought I would try and get involved without treading on other people's toes! RadioAnorakUK (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are already doing better than at least one person. ;-) I have added a welcome message to your User Talk page. That has a lot of useful links to help you get started. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

LIGS University

Aloha, I am sorry for my mistakes. My name is Pavel Makovsky and I am owner and President of LIGS University. This first time when I create a new page. I wanted add our logo. Best Regards Pavel Makovsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelMakovsky (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You should not write about your own organisation as you have a conflict of interests. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Regarding the removal of activities on the Christian Solidarity Worldwide page. The citation your refer to talks of teh Roman Catholic organisation Christian Solidarity. This is not the same organisation as Christian Solidarity Worldwide who are an ecumenical group (and members of the protestant body the Evangelical Alliance) working for religious freedom for all internationally. Hope that clarifies things? I've removed the reference and added a note accordingly Thanks Scot 212.139.212.100 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Attack pages

You have attempted to edit my entries made earlier today. Please double-check your arguments, since my entries fully comply with the Wikipedia rules (they report verifiable fact supported by trutwirthy links), whereas your edits violate the rules of Wikipedia. Donempirer (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Donempirer

You don't really believe that do you? You didn't even read the rules did you? I reiiterate what I wrote on your talk page: Wikipedia is not for attacking journalists who you disagree with. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with DanielRigal. Please stop attacking people. Eeekster (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear DanielRigal, Dear Eeekster, As is clearly stated by the Wikipedia rules, a journalist is a public figure responsible for all his/her actions. If such actions potentially lead to encouraging violence that is against the international law which is repsected by Wikipedia. The cases reported above fail into this category. This is not about personal biases or likes. This is about serious professional misconduct which should be treated as such. The cases documented in the Wikipedia entries are supported by verifiable links, and thus you are acting against the Wikipedia rules while trying to remove these entries. Please stop your disrespect to the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donempirer (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to understand that both Eeekster and myself have been here for quite a while and have a working knowledge of the rules. Maybe I should clarify that when we say "the rules" this refers to the published polices of Wikipedia not the rules that you are making up on the fly. Our policy for biographies of living people constrains critical coverage even more than the general neutrality policy. Making an article just to abuse somebody is unacceptable even if you can "reference" the abuse to abuse on in other media. You need to back off or you will be blocked from editing. The administrators will be even less impressed with your made up rules than I am. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. Too late. He already got blocked. Well, he can't say that we didn't try to warn him. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I wasn't expecting that block. Eeekster (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

CJ

Based on some off-site info, I get the sense that Caidin might have cognitive issues, so I dunno if "twerp" is really warranted (not that it ever really would be...) Anyhow, not meant as a criticism of you, just as an FYI. You did a fine job. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It is hard to tell. I think he is probably just a kid who enjoys being a nuisance but there could be more to it so I'll try to err on the side of caution in future. The annoying thing is that it is a safe bet that he has the same article text saved on his computer and that we will be seeing it again fairly soon. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Time Cube spam

Any chance you've got a cached copy of the Time Cube page in your browser there, if it's still redirecting? Per my last comment on the talk page, I think this is just an innocuous (if annoying) thing that Network Solutions do when your domain expires, and they're not doing it on that domain any more. --McGeddon (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. I tried hammering shift-reload before and I have tried it again now. I even tried a different browser that definitely can't have it cached. It always tries to redirect me to another site. Before it was going to a blatant spam site. Last couple of times I tried it, it went to to a blank page instead. I am guessing it redirects to spam sites/subsites on a rotating basis and some of the sites on its list are blank either because they have not been sold yet or because anybody hoping to make a fast buck off Timecube is probably not too bright. ;-) Maybe there is some logic that makes it redirect some people but not others. Who knows what they might think is clever. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category

Hi DanielRigal: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

AD Liano - Barberland + Everything Strange and New

Hi Daniel - I'm a new contributor to wikipedia -- I've been using the Sandbox as an authoring tool, saving my work in progress along the way but I now see that has not been a good decision and my incomplete entries have drawn flags. But now that I've invested time into editing, could you please give me seven days to complete our entries. My purpose for contributions is to add select notable works in an entirely subjective fashion, however, since my method of authoring involved pasting blurbs from other materials as sources which Wiki has correctly deemed as promotional, I've seemed to trip every flag in your system. Sorry about that. No promotional objectives here. Again, after these pages I will author offline, as I didn't know that sandbox published entries live. Please let me know. Adliano (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adliano (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You should not be writing about yourself, your friends or your projects. You have a conflict of interests. You also need to be very careful about copyright infringement. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Open Division

For your information, we have a page about him, on fr.wikipedia.org: fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme en cours/Affaire Selim Belmaachi. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Radio Station Presenters

So, if you feel that "you" don't like presenter names included in articles, how about you go through the likes of Mix 96 and Pirate FM. Also, The Breeze. I'll more than happily help you go through them all! 86.171.173.171 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No you won't. You will almost certainly be blocked soon. I'm happy to look at those articles and apply the rules there, if they are being broken, but don't imagine that any misbehaviour on those articles justifies your disgraceful, idiotic and disruptive behaviour on Delta FM. You need to drop the stick on this issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC

I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and editing articles, but to me, this seems like someone who wants their name on the article. Whoever it is, the only person I can see that is notable is Nathan James. At a push, Mark Watson (who I often hear on Heart). RadioAnorakUK (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)