User talk:DanielM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DanielM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  -- Longhair | Talk 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Norm Coleman's page and Galloway

I just wanted to let you know that we took off (and moved to the Oil-for-food page) those parts of the Galloway information that had very little to do with Coleman. Please see Talk:Norm Coleman for the discussion. Please let me know if you disagree and why. Thanks. -- MicahMN | Talk 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted from Wikipedia, but rather moved to a more appropriate place. There is an entire paragraph about Coleman and the Oil-for-food investigation. As for Galloway's testimony, it has very little to do with Coleman. There are two different links that remain in the Coleman article where people wanting to read more about the matter can. -- MicahMN | Talk 03:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, I thought it was the same content. I will not revert the article anymore, but I may make some edits to it tomorrow. -- MicahMN | Talk 04:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think he ever did. DanielM 02:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

Your edit summary "Rm POV. The judge didn't see it as an attack" has me baffled. The edit is completely NPOV and no Judge was involved. Could you explain what you mean? David | Talk 12:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I responded to this some time ago. The edit was very problematic. DanielM 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norm Coleman

I first want to say that I respect that you disagree about the relevance of keeping everything written about the George Galloway affair in the article. Discussing it is a great way to find common ground and consensus.

I want to clarify that you are incorrect to say that I am motivated in my call for a reasonable consensus on the matter because I want to make the article "Coleman friendly." I try not to bring my personal politics into wikipedia because to do so would be to counter-productive to writing encyclopedia. I happen to personally despise Mr. Coleman's politics, but that doesn't mean that I think he isn't entitled to a fair and neutral article in Wikipedia.

I don't want to sound accusatory, but it appears to me that you want to use the Coleman article to vindicate Mr. Galloway and criticize Mr. Coleman. This motivation really goes against the whole spirit of wikipedia, and that's what was so wrong with Coleman's staff coming on with an agenda to change what should be a neutral article in Coleman's favor. I should add that they really didn't change the Galloway stuff in their vandalism. -- MicahMN | μ 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be MicahMN's personal view, but I don't think it "it appears" that I want to vindicate George Galloway or anyone else. You can balance perspectives but you can't balance facts. If Galloway seems to come out ahead in the affair to some people, it may well be because of the facts. You shouldn't try to finesse facts or omit key details to ensure that each encounter like this each comes out looking like a draw. Having said that, I myself don't really think Galloway comes out vindicated. When MicahMN talks about the "spirit of Wikipedia" or having a "quality article" I've found that this is his way of saying he wants the article to reflect his own viewpoints and tastes. DanielM 10:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delegate Zero/The Other Campaign

Firstly, it is Delgegado Zero not Delegate Zero, I will try and change this. Secondly, and more importantly, just because he has changed his name does not mean it warrants an individual article, for example, there are not seperate articles for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. I will try and get the two merged. --Horses In The Sky 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the name, I can see where you are coming from but I think it would be best to use his correct name and have a redirect from Delegate Zero. However (although I do not know the exact wikipedia policy) I can see no example of pages being created for name changes. I have already stated one example and here are some others Left Party (Germany) and Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus as well as Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam. If you can find some examples in the other direction then I will be happy to debate this but as for now, I think the redirect should stand. --Horses In The Sky 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, perhaps it was a bit arrogant, bring back the page if you want, I just can't see any logical reason for it to exist. --Horses In The Sky 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect - Go to why do we redirect and look at the sixth one down. --Horses In The Sky 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree there may be a case to change the Subcommandante Marcos article heading to Delegado Zero but maybe not until the name change has become common knowledge and in any case, he may decide to change his name back at some point. --Horses In The Sky 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He was right about the one thing, there should be a single entry for this person, but we're not sure about the other. Judging by a popular news story search engine, english-language media refers to him as Delegate Zero much more often than Delegado Zero. Does this mean Wikipedia should refer to him that way as well? Not so sure. As yet have not found anything in the rules about that. DanielM 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Balkey

Just a hint for next time - instead of blanking the content at Eric Balkey and entering a redirect, then creating the correctly spelled article, you could have used the "move" tab at the top of your page. This would have preserved the page history and done the redirect for you :) --BigBlueFish 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coleman Pics

I got the photos from a friend who attended Hofstra University at the same time as Norm Coleman. He happens to still have his old class of 1970 yearbook. He mentioned it to me and I took a look -> whoa Norm Coleman, crazy. Anyway, that's the story. AaronRoe 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coleman and Galloway

Please let me know how this can be about Norm Coleman and not about Galloway. This is very blantant POV and you appear driven by some agenda (I will not put an adjective in front of it but it is obvious what it is). Please refer to any standard biographical technique that would make the material you reverted relevant under "Norm Coleman" under circumstances. You seem to have personal/policical issues that are not relevant to objective biographical writing. I'll wait a few days for your response before re-editing. Rossp 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)rossp

These were warrantless allegations, he was irritated IMO that I reverted his wholesale deletions to longstanding compromise text. I responded at his talk page. DanielM 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Lmm c.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lmm c.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/User_talk%7EDanielM_8123.html"