User talk:Daniel5127/Archive VI

Happy Birthday!!
Politics rule 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inforbox on NFL Player
Hi Daniel, thanks for your post on my talk page. I am a little busy today because an article I substantially-wrote Baby Gender Mentor, made it to the Main Page as Today's Featured Article. That seems to spark a lot of vandalism as well as more serious questions or concerns that need to be discussed. Therefore, I haven't gone to check into all those articles. Off the top of my head, the color may be strange because these articles were all started when the players played college football for UT. UT player infoboxes match the school colors. It could be they did not get changed when the player went into the NFL. Or maybe someone is making the color match their NFL team color? I can look into it more later if you like. Best, Johntex\talk 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image rendering
I've written > 100 biographies for Medal of Honor recipients. Early on, I tested various image sizes and renderings &mdash; to be sure that they were compatible with various browsers and screens sizes &mdash; in order to make a standard template. My tests were by no means comprehensive. In the case of the increase in image size that you made, it renders well on a large screen PC; but, on a medium screen Mac and laptop Mac, the medal image drops below the individual's picture. 180px for the individual's picture and 90px for the Medal of Honor image works. &mdash; User: (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi There!
Dear Friend, I notice that you left a comment on the board. That's some great perception of yours. You are wise beyond your years. I believe you got a talent to spot BS right away. In my case, I am hoping that the admins just look at the evidence of repeated personal attacks against me and agree that the external link these 2 users are trying to include on a permanent basis, be dismissed as spam and any accusations of "sneaky vandalism" disregarded as diversion tactic. Anyway, you are right, there is sock puppetry, I already narrowed down to 3 new user names. Do you agree? Thanks again for your input. Jrod2 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying your messages. But I will respond your messages tomorrow because I haven't had time to deal with this. Daniel  5127  07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jvport.jpg
Hi, I saw you tagged this image to nominate for deletion. Even though Image uploadder provided sources on the image that I am mentioning right now, but you nominated this image for deletion. Before you nominated this image for deletion, you said that nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material. Could you please explain to me why nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material in my talk page? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response will be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel  5127  07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Daniel5127. We need verifiable source information for the images used on Wikipedia. The PD-USGov tag is for images know to have been produced by someone working on behalf of United States federal government (what makes the image Public Domain and acceptable for Wikipedia). The source information for Image:Jvport.jpg should let us check that this image was indeed produced by someone working on behalf of United States federal government, and a link to commercial website nndb, unfortunately, doesn't make we conclude that.


 * Is this image distributed in some official government website (.gov websites)? If so, that would be better source information than the link to nndb, that's just a site that happens to use the image.


 * I've reverted your edition to the image for now. I hope you understand. Let me know if you still have any doubts or if I can still be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ji Han Jae
Thanks for helping there. If I keep reverting I fear I will get penalized myself! : ) while I guess anonymous posters seem to have nothing to fear.

I have no problem with this persistant posters information but it is not true to the book source I am quoting. His source has no publication name and I wonder if it is a true source. It could be but if this is the case it should be no problem to produce an accurate ref.

I have to admit I'm getting a bit frustrated. I've written quite a bit of new content in this article but I'm starting to think it isn't worth the effort!

Anyway thanks again --Mateo2006 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Lewis Black
I'm not sure if this is the proper way to respond, but I just received your message concerning changes to Lewis Black's page. I had changed the spelling of "cancelled" to "canceled" and you reverted it stating that "British English" should not be used on Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I understand the following:

verb - to cancel (third-person singular simple present cancels, present participle cancelling (Commonwealth), canceling (American), simple past cancelled (Commonwealth), canceled (American), past participle cancelled (Commonwealth), canceled (American)

means that the american past participle is "canceled." It's how I've always seen it spelled and I just happened to notice. Let me know why I'm wrong, please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpgreenway (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WLA
(♠ Taifar ious1 ♠) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)