User talk:DanEdmonds

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 ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dipac Canned Salmon.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dipac Canned Salmon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gillard unopposed...source?
Can you provide a source for Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2010 that shows Gillard won the spill unopposed? It just seems a bit odd that Rudd would back down without a whimper, particularly considering how fired up he was last night. -- saberwyn 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every news source is reporting this, but I've put one up from ABC News. To respond to your disbelief, Kevin Rudd did not want to face landslide defeat. DanEdmonds (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another Rudd backflip before a likely drubbing...now its in character. Thanks for the source. -- saberwyn 00:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of the section in Salt
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivecorrector (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could describe a billion movies that are as similar as that description. It's like putting a whole section in Avatar describing how Titanic is so similar, because there's a man and a woman. And they fall in love. But there's people not wanting them to be together because of class differences. But the better-classed character doesn't want to belong to their original class anymore. These things are called plots, and movies circulate around common themes and patterns - there's only a need to mention it if there is a drastic similarity that is often talked about. DanEdmonds (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,

You wrote "Totally unnecessary and irrelevant, especially off just one source - it's not even that close of a match," when you totally deleted the new section about the origins of the Salt film, and the similarities between Salt and the original Equilibrium movie of Kurt Wimmer who wrote both films. When you say that something is irrelevant because "it is off just one source", please consider the possibility that this might be because very few people may have remembered the original Equilibrium film that was unpopular. I must say that while I respect your opinion, in view of the strong words you chose to justify your action, your judgment may be explained in part by the Japanese proverb: "The nail that sticks out gets hammered." In this general encyclopedic article about Salt, it is not too irrelevant to bring to the attention of the audience the origin of the Salt movie, and the continuity of style and general world view of the author Wimmer. In the name of decency, instead of totally deleting the section, if you had moved it and incorporated it into the existing filming section with a shorter sentence, this would have been better. I agree that it is VERY difficult to make films objective, but those who have seen the original Equilibrium would concur that not only the scripts but even many of the scenes seem to be intentionally similar in Salt, reflecting the background of the writer. Regards, Objectivecorrector. Re added by: DanEdmonds (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This novel of a post is obviously you just promoting your love of the movie Equilibrium. I have seen the movie Equilibrium. It is dystopian. What is not dystopian is Salt. Sure, there's elements of paranoia in it... but that doesn't make it dystopian. It makes it a spy thriller. One of the tenets of wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, it HAS to be what people are already talking about, or else it is not subjective. If you want to be a movie-wank about it, which you are admitting to being, just include one line in reference in the production section. No need to reply with another post begging me to 'study' the movie Equilibrium. Also, 'cardinal sin'? I don't think that being restrictive will damn my soul to hell. DanEdmonds (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies! If you have already seen Equilibrium before you said that the analogy is similar to Cameron's Avatar and Titanic, or that the issue is just similar to a Romeo and Juliet separated by class differences, and if you still insist that these analogies are appropriate, then everything I said is unnecessary, and to save space and time in your talk page I have deleted my previous lines. Yes, Salt is not dystopian in the dictionary sense because chronologically it is not in the future, but the issue is still an omnipotent and oppressive cult system of mind/emotion control just like Equilibrium, and in both Equilibrium and Salt the issue is not a Romeo and Juliet story but totalitarian oppression and the resistance to it. Your objectivity has been compromised, because although your being "restrictive", as you put it, is perfectly OK, your personally censoring an existing article because you do not agree, and then labeling it irrelevant etc by comparing the context to Titanic, etc, indicates aleatory contempt and being dismissive of that article which I did not invent. My emphasizing Equilibrium was not  "begging" you to see the movie but to explain the analogies in the article that you ridiculed, due to the inaccurate exogenous things you have brought in to discredit the article. The subject of the article WAS already something people were talking about, but it was not very popular, and so you censored it.

Regards, Objectivecorrector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivecorrector (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you even know what 'exogenous' means? 'Aleatory'? I do, and they do not fit. Please stop trying to use big words to deliver your argument. I appreciate you wanting to remove your previously deleted endless rhetoric, but I've readded it for reference purposes. If you'd like to readd the reference, go for it - I'm sure it will be brought up in discussion regarding its weight. Have a good day. DanEdmonds (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

your userpage
I think there's a typo on your userpage - did you mean 'because' rather than 'become' in the second paragraph? Bertcocaine (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:User DanEdmonds in 2007.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:User DanEdmonds in 2007.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)