User talk:Daggerstab

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --M e rovingian { T C @ } 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

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

Image:Berberss.JPG
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

Question
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 Non-free content. --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)

Sorry
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)

Steven Erikson
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 Guardian.co.uk article and the Salon.com 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 Reliable sources and 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!!???
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 www.duediligenceassociation.org".
 * Your credentials are irrelevant in the case. I suggest making yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies, starting from What Wikipedia is not and Conflict of interest. You may also have a look at 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 Copyright violations. --Daggerstab (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian frigates and redirects
I've declined your CSD nominations of Bulgarian frigate Gordi (43) and Bulgarian frigate Verni (42). "unnecessary" isn't a valid CSD criterion for redirects, and with ship pennant number identification standards they're probably technically correct (if the unsourced claims in the article are correct). WP:RFD is the proper venue for stuff like those if you think they're truly problematic, although I'm not convinced that deletion is actually beneficial there. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)