User talk:Bkdanilo

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Fire Star 19:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Full Tilt Entry
Hi Datheisen (and others):

Please forgive my negligence in describing my edits to the Full Tilt Poker article. If it's alright with everyone, I'll go through and make the changes one section at a time -- and label the edits -- so everyone can see exactly what I've done.

It is my intent to:

- Update the article - Provide citations for verification, per Wikipedia's request

Thank you for your patience in this matter,

Bkdanilo (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Run-it-twice.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Run-it-twice.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Full-tilt-poker-academy-01 (2) jpeg.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Full-tilt-poker-academy-01 (2) jpeg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made an error. I reviewed what you had posted closer and you were actually editing. I apologize.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Tilt Poker
Hi. When you are making changes to Full Tilt Poker and other articles can you please make a short edit summary describing the changes that you have made? This is very helpful to other editors so we don't have to manually review the changes you have made in many cases. You can review the 'history' link at the top of any article to get an idea of the types of notes editors typically make. Thanks! DegenFarang (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

General advice, as requested
For public record, Bkdanilo contacted me directly looking for assistance for a new editor. First off-- User:DegenFarang is offering important advice in the above section on providing an edit summary and looking at edit histories, since it greatly helps other editors to know what's going on in an article without having to look over every last word for safety (we call the comparisons diffs). From experience I'll say that any edit without some kind of summary will be checked and scrutinized regardless of what else they plan to work on or discuss. Actually, as the clam advice warning in the above section was stricken and apologized for, I'm going to do the same and apologize for my large adjustment and reversion to a prior version of the Full tilt poker article that was mostly of your edits. From my point of view the article has a number of problems and now do I see that there wasn't specifically anything "bad" with what you added and a lot of others want to keep things as they had written. Just write a brief explanation of what you added, removed, adjusted, etc. (My edit summaries are always long and really don't want you to worry about something like that). There is some slang used in comments such as "rv", being short for "revert", but I'd highly suggest more of a summary than that. Don't let that discourage you... it's good to want to improve articles, and just because someone likes what they said the most doesn't mean you should back off. Not only are you helping other editors by explaining your changes, but in exceptionally frustrated cases it can help others see your good intentions when discussing a certain thing. Speaking of discussion, here's a major thing you'll want to get used to-- use of talk pages. Since we work at Wikipedia and edit based on consensus, your general view should be to use good faith with other editors and trust they're trying their best on an article to keep what is already there factual. If you're looking to make any sort of large removals of content or change highly-referenced material I'll just flatly say it shouldn't be done without proposing it on the article talk page. Click that little "discussion" or "talk" tab in the upper-left of the top of the page. When things are only lightly discussed or aren't replied to at all after a week or so, proceed with caution on edits but for a moment think you can't. Often, you'll have your edits reverted as I rather accidentally ended up doing to yours... don't panic! Head back to the talk page, and if nothing is to be found there it's completely encouraged you ask the person directly about their actions or what would be a good edit just like you did tonight! Perfect! For lengthy debates I'd suggest heading back to the article's talk page. The end goal is compromise or other agreement based on sourced information verified, and there are countless ways to word things and in almost all cases there's a middle ground. So long as you stay out of highly controversial articles this shouldn't happen much.

Suggested reading for you: Basic principles of Verifiable information, consensus for many types of article edits, listings of how we define a lot of policies and guidelines (note: take all with a grain of salt), and at the end of the day we'll all hope for edits that make the best possible articles. Take all the time you'd like to read things. For more questions, I can try my best on answers and general advice, but I'm hardly a database of every last detail around here (no one is!). Personally, I'd check out this discussion area where you can ask pretty much whatever you might need, and with many different users contributing to things there it's easier to be a variety of opinions.

I wish you the best of luck and enjoyment of your time at Wikipedia.
 * Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)