User talk:DanielRigal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2006. 2007. 2008. Automated Messages.

[edit] Eli Soriano's Awards

Hi, I would like to call your attention to the Awards and Recognitions section of the Eliseo_Soriano article. I was unable to source 99.9% of the award-giving-bodies. When I Google them on quotes like "Sons and Daughter of Charity" then add "Philippines" as a qualifier the only website that comes up is the one here in WP.

According to the official website of [Gawad Amerika] "Gawad Amerika is an independent award-giving body based in the USA that recognizes the achievements of Fil-Am people in the field of acting, singing, professional carrers, businesses and the Life Time achievements since 2001." This is the real Gawad Amerika award and Soriano's group, who seem to be creating temporary award giving bodies for the purpose of giving awards to Soriano (and also to a few others so that it will not be so obvious) seem to have undermined the existence of a real Gawad Amerika, who only gives awards to Fil-Am people, and created their own temporary Gawad Amerika.

I was happy to find the Gawad Amerika website because I thought that at last I found an award-giving body that really exists, but alas! it is a different Gawad Amerika.

I also noticed that an award received by their website is listed there. How is it that an award intended for their church's website became an award of Soriano? That award is for the webmaster.

There is so much anomaly in that list. Barangay level appreciations were included, as well as awards issued by an unnotable radio program. All of them should not belong to an encyclopedia.

Thanks! - Shannon Rose (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I think it is well worth posting your analysis to the talk page and suggesting that the awards section should be removed if nobody can provide evidence of its accuracy. If nobody comes up with any reasonable references in week or two then it would be perfectly justified to remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I find the following statement a dizzying fallacy (i.e. nonsense), "In an attempt to end the conflict between the two groups, Soriano challenged the INC executive minister to a one-on-one debate on TV on March 27, 2005 to once and for all end the dispute between the two groups and prove who is telling the truth." How can winning or losing a debate "prove" who is telling the truth? Facts are not established by winning debates. Also, how can such a debate "end the conflict between the two groups"? These words don't seem encyclopedic at all. Any bum on the street, for example, can challenge the President of the United States to a debate. There is a simple lack of logic that is evident in those lines. What is your view regarding this matter. - Shannon Rose (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the phrases you object to are direct quotes then they should be put in quotes and sourced. If they are not direct quotes then the section could be reworded to much better effect. I don't know what the actual situation is. My thought would be to put a CN tag on it and see if anybody comes up with references that make it clear. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag On Food with Anna Olson

I understand what you are trying to get at. See instead of just tagging the article, you could help by editing the article. But really, with information out there, you go on what you have. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But in all actuality, I don't see how it is written in a promotional tone. Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It reads like a promotional synopsis. The use of the word "unique" is blatantly promotional. The phrase "her world of food" is meaningless ad-speak. It would be better if this was fixed by somebody familiar with the subject but I will have a go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have done it. I chopped out the bit about local produce and events because I wasn't able to find a way a nice way to work it into the new wording but there is no reason why it can't be added back. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Design Eye Position

I have now added a reference. Which "context" do you think is still missing? Which part or parts do you think are "confusing"? I'm not sure how this can be written any more plainly. What else is there to say? Thanks, Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is better than it was. The diagram in the reference is what made it click for me. The first sentence remains a problem. I appreciate that it isn't always easy to write about your chosen field for a general audience. Now that I understand it I will have a go at making it easier to follow. As it is a general term, I will also restructure it so that sections on other fields than military aircraft design can easily be added. If I accidentally introduce any inaccuracies then please correct them. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have done it now. I am not sure if the link I made to Symbology goes to the correct place. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good tidy up, thank you. I made a minor tweak as the interface is rarely purely visual, and in most cases all of it, even the visual part, cannot been seen at once. But yes, the current link to symbology may not be appropriate. "Symbology" is really a bit of US-military-cockpit-design-speak, and does not really mean "the symbolic use of something" in general. An alternative might be simply "symbols on the displays". Um, I'm still not sure what more "context" could be provided. The article no longer seems "confusing to a reader" in any way to me. I agree a diagram would be ideal, but I am unsure of where to get one. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the tags off now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Shettleworth article

I figured out how to add a reference to show Shettleworth's importance to her field. I hope it helps.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That certainly helps. I have changed the tags. I have left a refimprove on it because I think it would help to have a few additional references. You can take that tag off if you disagree. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs more expansion and refs, so I will keep the tags while I work on the article. Thanks eh! Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency Partition

Have some patience when you do not get it or ask someone. Why do we need here stub??????? --Tangi-tamma (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to understand that this is a general encyclopaedia not a specialist mathematical one. You need to explain what your subject is without assuming prior knowledge of the subject. Mathematical knowledge will probably be needed to understand the whole article but you need to make sure that the first sentence makes sense to the general reader. You suggest I "ask someone". Please think about this. The whole point of the encyclopaedia is to document and explain knowledge. If it is incomprehensible without asking somebody else to explain it then it is a failure.

Stub is just a way of saying that it is a very short article which needs to grow into a bigger one which fully explains the subject. You can take that off once the article explains the subject fully and is referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have 7 references referenced but only two listed. May I suggest that you use the REF tag to make your references. That will keep then straight for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions are well received. I did not understand "You also seem to have 7 references referenced but only two listed". What it is .. two listed.

How can I create a stub? Guide me with one example and I will make use of it. Thanks a lot.

--70.110.217.241 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to use stubs to define potentially and forcibly graphs concepts. I will search how to create stubs, but meanwhile give me steps how to create stubs. Thanks a lot.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rob McDowall

Daniel

I am sorry for emailing you. I am trying to sort out that article. It still says it is going to be deleted i am unsure what to do.

--Np097264 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. As long as it has hangon on it the admins will look at the talk page and take that into consideration before they delete it. I am going to take the deletion tag off now anyway. Your text does assert notability and that is enough to avoid speedy deletion. I will add a load of other tags. These will say what needs to be fixed in the article. You can take these off as you address each issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing a bit of tidying up. I have not done it all but it should give you the idea of what needs doing. Try to get the references moved inline so that they are used to back up specific parts of the article. Don't link words more then once and only link things that are relevant. Always refer to the subject by his surname. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and the tone needs to be formal and factual.

I also see that you missed out on the standard welcome/introduction message when joining Wikipedia, which might explain why you are having a bit of a tough time. I am going to put that on your talk page. That will give you a starting point with links to the policies and instructions you will need. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I am still falling over here, I have met him twice and I am a follower of the campaign and the politics behind it. i Dont know what else i can put, I have changed some things and i am looking at more things just now. Alot of the information about his personal life etc has come from Bio Introduction pages at the Scottish Socialist Party site, which I have permission to replicate. Advice would be very much appreciated. Np097264 14:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus on solid factual things that have been covered in the media. You mentioned radio appearances. If you can reference those it will help. Try to keep your own views out of it and keep a neutral tone. I advise against copying the bio verbatim, even with permission. Shorten it down to the bare essentials. In fact it would be good to shorten the whole article.

Be prepared for the possibility that the article might be deleted. It might be that even after you have done your best to demonstrate what he is notable for that this will not be enough. If this happens, please do not take it personally. It will just indicate that the subject was not quite notable enough for inclusion at this stage although he could become so later. You will still be welcome to stay and work on other articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten mutual funds

How is this article any diffrent than the list of "party schools", or the "list of birds". Please explain your reasoning for the proposed deletion of my article. thanks you. Dwilso 21:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will answer on the talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady's High School, Motherwell

Just letting you know that this article has had some sources added; it's still not in the best shape, but you still might want to reconsider your !vote here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation: Need Admin Help!

{{helpme}} A user called User:DRigal is impersonating me. He has copied my user page and is vandalising the Andrew Regan article. Please can an administrator put a stop to this. I value my good name on Wikipedia and I don't like it being abused to disrupt and vandalise the system. I do not know who is responsible for this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, the best way to get help from Admins is to post the issue on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. It should get dealt with fairly quickly there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 11:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ConMan mentioned this on IRC and got my attention; I had a look and things seemed to add up supporting your story, so I've blocked the offending account from editing. I'll be heading offline in the near future, but if this continues to be a problem you can avail yourself of AN/I as suggested. Cheers. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Regan

Hi Daniel, Hope you're well. I've just noticed you did some edits and then undid those edits on Andrew Regan's wiki page. Just checking everything is OK. I see you're a new page patroller. If you're happy I'm happy! Thanks, Fi Fionamcgowan (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Somebody was impersonating me to vandalise the article. I undid their changes and the admins kicked them off. Everything is fine now. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, I've had changes made to the page by an unregistered member again today. I will change back, but do want it noted that these were unrequired changes. Cheers Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, there have been extensive edits on Andrew Regans Wiki page. The page had in the past been a victim of vandalism and all copy which was on the page prior to edits over the weekend had been the subject of a detailed m:OTRS discussion. You can read my previous discussions with Wiki monitor Avraham which you can see on my talk page and his archived talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham/Archive_19. I'm curious as to what has brought on this recent bout of edits and appreciate you help with this. Thanks Fionamcgowan (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only speculate on what other people are thinking. I think that some people are keen for the article not to contain any information that puts Reagan in a bad light and others are keen to remove information that they see as promotional for him. I don't think there is a particular reason for the flurry of edits. The article goes to sleep for a while but when somebody makes one edit it kicks off a round of counter edits until it all dies down again. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for the insight. I think you are right, one edit leads to another an so on. Thanks for looking at this. Cheers Fionamcgowan (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Careful, He Might Hear You

Thanks for fixing up the page duplication. I was just about to figure out how to do it and saw that you have taken care of it already. Thanks again. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge Networking

Thanks for your message. You are right: I am a very beginner. I searched in Wikipedia for the term knowledge networking and was surprised that I did not find any article. Only Knowledge Network, but this term is used in a specific commercial context there. Hence, I tried to edit my first article and tried to provide the content which I have. I did not link the article to other articles up to now, as I know that the article is still not ready. In the meantime I have added some additional content and during the next week a student of mine will do some research on further references and content. Please give us some time before deleting the article. I hoped that due to the Wiki principle others will also contribute and will improve the article. I just need a citable entry at Wikipedia - whoever wrote it. Heisss (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other authors edited a lot of valueable content. I have now deleted the "delete"-flag and hope that the article can remain as an initial version. I also heared that the BITKOM will support us in improving the content. Heisss (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Folk Music

Okay, I'm new to Wikipedia, writing an article on Swedish folk music. I cite my own dissertation basically because all the other sources I could cite, while reliable, and secondary, are also in Swedish. So my question is, if I go through and change all the citations, will the article be deleted because I haven't cited anything in English? David Kaminsky (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem now. I was going to suggest citing both but I just had a look and I see that you have already done that. I think that is the best approach.

You might want to have a look at the Swedish Wikipedia. They almost certainly have an article on the same subject. If you make interwiki links on each article to the other then that may encourage people who work on the Swedish article to contribute to the English one and vice-versa. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision3 and its podcasts

Thanks for your message. Yes it is quite a dilemma, but in the end I decided to tag a couple for speedy and see what happened. On reflection I think your idea of a multi-article Afd nomination is probably better -- at least that way there will be consensus one way or the other! I can do single article Afds using Twinkle, not sure how to go about a multi. – ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been nominating the most obviously non-notable podcasts for speedy deletion and they have been deleted. I will continue to review the remaining ones as time permits - some of them do assert a scintilla of notability so maybe those are better off at Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laura J. Dahl

Heh - looks like you tagged this with various cleanup templates while I was busy writing the afd nomination for it! Grutness...wha? 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Rollins

Thanks for fixing the vandalism to that article, on behalf of WP:PHILLIES. Killervogel5 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stinger Report Issue

I was unable to save any of the admin comments from the Stinger site when the site vanished, but was able to save one comment from the blocked account:

I'm not sure what changes were requested of what, but your username is a violation of our policy. You are free to either register a new one or request a quick username change as is given in the template above so that you can resume editing. --slakr\ talk / 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I am seeing a revisionist attitude to the work we have done to apply with the Wiki requirements. We made the edits changes and re-draft, and then the site was removed with one individual cliaming that no changes had been made. I will have to consider taking this to the board if it happens again as it looks like there is one rule for consumer games media and another for amusement trade media.Kwp729 (talk)

[edit] Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. After the article was deleted, I requested that it be userfied so that I could attempt to improve it. I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg

Hello. Just to let you know that I sent Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg to Images for discussion rather than simply deleting it. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dudemeister1234

Thnx a lot for your feedback! I really appreciate you actually responding rather than just punishing me for reasons I don't understand, like the other people. I make other contributions as well. Anyway, I am still going to publish Haven on my user page, I just won't make articles about it, until when or if it is written about by someone else, or cited, or reviewed, or otherwise well known. Trying to get onlinecomics.net to publish it.Oh, and if you could review what we put out as soon as it becomes available, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemeister1234 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Feedback- Dudemeister1234

You are a good guy, and I pretty much agree with YOU. It's just that my user page should be a place to experiment and do whatever I want. That is my philosophy. However, I will not attempt to create any more encyclopedia articles about it, at least not for a long, long time, when and if it become popular enough. So thanks for your feedback, DanielRigal, and I most sincerely appreciate it! P.S. Could you tell me what you personally think about it, and review pages and issues as they come up? That would be a big help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemeister1234 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)