User talk:Danlev/Archive 2

Image:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg
Hi, could you please elaborate on why you tagged this image for deletion under WP:CSD? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some Notes
I would like to register a complaint against you. The word "Faggotry" seem to sum up my problems with you succinctly. You really should fuck your father in your bedroom, not on your lawn. 71.250.37.239 (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've reported you to administrators. :) -- Dan Leveille TALK 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

List of high schools in Florida
I'm not going to edit war with you (IOW, I'll leave your edit, although it's likely to be removed by others who watch the page), but it's highly unlikely that redlinks on that list will encourage anyone to write an article on the school. Almost all of the high school articles I've seen have been written by someone who attends or attended the school, which rather limits the potential for a redlink on a list to do much in this case. Sometimes redlinks are useful for spurring creation of new articles, but I doubt it in this case. This list (and I would imagine others like it) tend to become link farms for external links to school websites, which necessitates a periodic cleanup. It's much easier to add an external link than to write even a stub article. (Addendum — Please take a look at the talk page for the article, on which it was generally agreed that redlinks should not appear on the list.)  Horologium  (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:DeviantART Fella.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DeviantART Fella.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I used to tag towards the top, then I had a change of heart after agreeing with User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. See the conversation I had on this last month also at User_talk:Longhair/Archive18 and User_talk:Unschool. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Dont you dare say im not notable. I have lawyers you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonedead (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Briefs picture
No worries. I didn't much care for that one either, and the original version of the one I uploaded had trademark issues but was a pretty decent one to begin with, so it seemed like the best solution. Cheers! ペコペコ (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Murray Article
Your admin protected the wrong page. The article locked is the gutted version which started on 10 December 2007. There is no dispute now, the user doing this is happy to see the article gutted. He also gutted the article on roy gillaspie down to one line. That is why wikipedia has trouble raising money, too many personal agendas and incidents like this.Tss8071 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An admin, Camaron1, locked the wrong article. The article s/he locked is the gutted one which started on 10 December 2007.
 * S/he says it is in dispute, there is no dispute now, that user is happy to see the gutted version on wikipedia and the 'roy gillaspie' article was gutted down to one line because it relates to 'arnold murray'.
 * You say you did not look into it much, I know. Incidents like these make it hard for wikipedia to be considered ligitimate.
 * I am going walking. Bye.Tss8071 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes he did protect the wrong article. That is the gutted version from 10 December 2007, previous to that, the article was unchanged for a long time.
 * An anon user participating in this also gutted the 'roy gillaspie' article to one line because it refers to arnold murray.  I reverted those changes but is the one line article also the correct article to be there?


 * There is a dispute tag on the arnold murray article. Maybe you can tell me exactly what the dispute is?  The user doing this is happy to see the gutted version on wikipedia.
 * He is gone. You can remove the dispute tag now.Tss8071 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone has been left a message but it takes two people to have a dispute and he is gone. The admin(s) locked the gutted article.  Maybe you can explain to me how one person can have a dispute with himself.
 * Let me repeat that. The users doing this, gutting the article since 10 December 2007, are gone.
 * Based on what the admins have done so far with this, I have little confidence they will do much more, let alone the right thing.
 * Your statement about this making wikipedia legitimate made me laugh. Mindless locking of articles is considered good work?
 * Also, your statement about how much money they raised made me laugh. I contract and work in many companies and have heard more often then not that there are too many personal agendas on wikipedia and that is what makes it hard to be recognized as legitimate.
 * $1.5 million? Maybe if admins did better work, that number could have been double or more.  Sounds like you are happy with average performance and label it as excellent work.Tss8071 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the resolution is, from cameron1, the gutted article will unprotect in five days and if it is reverted back to the original, then the user doing the reverting could be banned.


 * Got it now why wikipedia has trouble being considered legiitimate?  And locking an article on the main apge is not simply locking whatever version is there, it is the version that stays based on cameron1's comments.Tss8071 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cameron1 has lifted the lock on the article and the current, gutted, version stays. That is the result of the dispute process.  Whichever article version is locked on the main page means everything.  What cameron1 has done is legitamize vandalism and wiped out the work of many people for over a year.Tss8071 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, the article has undergone several revisions by the same users. First they gutted it and cluebot caught the vandalism and reverted it.  So, now they are slicing it up a little at a time, removing all negative content.
 * Reverting it back would constitute an edit war. So, over one year's work by many people, wiped out in minutes.Tss8071 (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure why you are editing it also. Parts of the article do not even make sense but are just disjointed sentences. Their goal is to remove all negative content and they realized that removing too much at one time alerts cluebot, so, they are removing a piece at a time. They will cut more pieces out over a period of this week. When I say they, they could very well be one person with multiple accounts. One year of work down the toilet through vandalism and a blatent disregard for the wiki process and for what the admin, cameron1, said.Tss8071 (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates are appropriate, background information is missing and was cut out of the article. DO NOT REMOVE tags without a discussion of it.65.87.185.73 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question was why not restore the information, because the same users delete it and that constitues an edit war. The original version of the article was restored after the vandalism, per cameron1's instructions, and within 12 hours, the same users went back and gutted the information out.  Cluebot caught it and reverted the changes.  It seems they are gutting a little at a time so as not to alert cluebot.  Since an edit war is a violation of wiki policies, the only other option is to mark the article with the wiki tags.65.87.185.73 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, cameron1 has already been left a message. You said to simply add the information back in, why?  Those users cut it out again.  The wiki process was followed, the decision was made, with the help of cameron1, and the users went back and re-deleted everything.


 * I agree it would be nice to discuss or build the article but all that has been done and all that has been undone within a matter of 1 minute.


 * The article started fairly small, a long time ago, and was edited by many people to something reasonable. Controversial stuff removed.  This one user will have none of that though and will delete anything added not to his liking.


 * Maybe at some point in the future, the work will be re-done after users like that disappear but after the article is redone, I suppose another user like him will gut the article again.65.87.185.73 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the article back, the one Cameron1 said to put back, and verified the license with 'Angel', Benton Countty Clerk's Office, 479-271-1013.

However, I am sure that will not stop them from deleting the information again.Tss8071 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was the ministerial license removed?Tss8071 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a nice try but some users are just not going to let any negative information in. The claim was the ministerial license was a fabrication. I got the license, uploaded it, sourced it, and they removed it anyway. Also, some of the paragraphs are disjointed sentences now, so, it would be difficult to restore the article piecemeal. The version earlier today was a good version and if people want to rewrite, etc. that is fine, but this other user is slicing and dicing anything negative. Thanks anyway thoughTss8071 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kate Gleason - RIT alumna?
You added the Rochester Institute of Technology alumni tag to the Kate Gleason article. Although she left a sizeable portion of her estate to RIT, I can find no evidence that she actually attended RIT or its predecessor Mechanics Institute. It would help if you could add a verifiable source reference for this. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About this edit...
Please don't do that -- it only encourages them. See WP:DENY. Just warn them, watch them, but don't goad them, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

High school names
Hi Dan, I gather that on further thought the proposed standard of high school name (city, state) was found to be unnecessary for schools which have the same name as the city and which are the only ones with that name in the state. I have therefore gone ahead and changed back Laconia, Gorham, Franklin, Exeter, Concord, and Belmont high schools. I agree with you and the others that (city, state) should be kept when the high school name is not the same as the town's, so places like Campbell and Trinity high schools should not have their names changed. Anyway, keep up the good work on the New Hampshire edits! --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Rochester Wikipedia groups
Hi Dan. User:Kingturtle tells me he recently moved to Rochester and would like to know if there are any Rochester groups online or offline for Wikipedia. I don't know of any ... do you? Truthanado (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not alone Dan. My wife and kids are convinced I am addicted to Wikipedia. And, by the way, I am both a Rochester Wikipedian and an RIT alumnus (from too many years ago to count) so I joined your new cat (which, by the way I had accidentally joined when you wikilinked it on my talk page; I nowiki'ed that tag and added the tag to my user page).While editing, I have occasionally "bumped into" Wikipedians from Rochester. Maybe we can see how many of us there are. Go Tigers. Truthanado (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deviantART Move
Hey, I hope you don't mind, I added the standardized template to the Requested move back to deviantART. I didn't realize a requested move case, so I thought it should be added. If you'd rather it didn't be there, feel free to undo my edit. Thanks. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. GreenReaper (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you think that (official typeset "deviantART") should be (official typeset and incorporated as "deviantART"). Because this is officially how they are incorporated. They use this on their legal documents and contracts. The title appears exactly as deviantART, Inc. -- Dan Leveille TALK 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that is stated sufficiently by the company entry in the infobox, which I previously changed and added the same reference to. I have changed the other instance in that page. GreenReaper (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hey
thanks remind me to never hire you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portal60hooch (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Murray
BLP concerns. I linked to the pre-stub version in the AFD to show even that doesn't make a good job with asserting notability. Will (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 19kb. 5 sources, of which some of them don't mention the subject in detail. That's ridiculously low for a BLP. Will (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BLPs are a special case; they need to be sourced. Will (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Template: User RochesterNY
Hi Danlev,

You probably noticed by now, but you accidentally created this template in the article namespace. I tried to move it straight to the template namespace, but Template:User Rochester already exists, so I renamed it slightly. Anyways, just thought I'd drop by to let you know. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring removed comments from other users' talk pages
Hi Danlev,

I'm not sure what the edit war at User talk:Ryder Spearmann was meant to achieve, but please don't restore removed comments from other users' talk pages, per User page.

All the best, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Of Rochester
I removed the image for two reasons 1) it was very obviously photoshopped and as a result was not an accurate portrayal of the city buildings and colors. 2) other images were taken down without discussion, and have been reasserted.

Thank you! - Evilarry (talk)

i did leave a summary of why it was done, you just didn't read it.

dont know how to create a new box, didn't know it deleted the old one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilarry (talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally you also removed other works without asking the respective owners how they felt about it. Whether or not you personally think a photo is beautiful, while i appreciate your preferences - shouldn't really be apart of wikipedia if its not a true to life color representation. Those buildings are highly run down, and they look like cartoons as a result of your photochopping.Evilarry (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded suitable replacementEvilarry (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rochester Images and Companies
Thanks for the info and advice.

I am a novice at Wikipedia...and I apologize for cluttering up the History pages.

I do not believe the Rochester page has too many images. Please refer to the Buffalo City page, or Syracuse city page (both cities of similar size and geography) and you will see a similar number of images. I am adding these image thumbs on the left and right of the page, where there was only previously "white space".

Also: Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, Wegmans, and Paetec are all Multi-Billion dollar entreprises. Therefore they are prominent in terms of local employment and politics, have a large real-estate and industrial presence locally and world wide....

Thanks again.

I am here to help, not harm.

Brian Stiehler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Concord High School (New Hampshire)
There's no reason why the footnotes need to contain quotes of the references. If a user wants to verify a statement, they will click the footnote and visit the link. Wikipedia references never include quotes. Also, I standardized the format for the reference lists - why did you revert the formatting? We need to keep formatting in standard WP styles for consistency, using templates. -- Dan Leveille TALK 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...nor is there any Wikipedia policy to remove quotes from footnotes. If you take a look at the templates you're using, the "quote" parameter is specifically designed for this purpose. Unless this standardization adds something to the article, Emerson's quote that "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" comes to mind. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no point in reformatting something when there's a developed and accepted format for it already. Be respectful of other's edits. I wasn't aware of the quote parameter, you could have simply added it in rather than reverting my edits. In response to your quote, I'll quote the Manual of Style: "consistency promotes professionalism" and "style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article." -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The style was applied consistently across the article, before it was changed. If relevant information hadn't been removed, I would have been far more likely to have left it unchanged. Was there any addition you had made in that edit to the article, or was it solely intended to change the format of references? Alansohn (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was formatting the references, as I do with any pages on WP that are inconsistent. There needs to be consistency across the site. It wasn't intended to add information, obviously. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the references had been formatted consistently within the article in compliance with "style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article.". Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just one quote. There needs to be consistency throughout Wikipedia, obviously. That's the point of templates. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had intended to include it myself, but you yourself cite "style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article", which would seem to clearly indicate that no changes should be made except to maintain consistency within an article, and the reference format used here was consistent throughout. Alansohn (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about consistency in general. OBVIOUSLY we want consistency throughout wikipedia, not just articles. If you think WP shouldn't be consistent then I can't help you, buddy. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Nothing requires consistency in general. The policy states that "style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article", which would make your changes completely and entirely unnecessary. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote the relevant section of WP:MOS more completely, "One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise..." As I have read this before, and do so again now, it's telling you to leave consistent formatting unchanged within an article, and states this as an "overriding principle". Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice on NFL illustration welcome
I've responded to your observation that No free lunch in search and optimization needs illustration, and have solicited advice.ThomHImself (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Karu
Just to let you know, if you find an article like Karu which has been wrongly tagged for speedy deletion, you can just remove the tag. Only the original author isn't supposed to remove it. Anyway, good catch there! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BubbleWrap.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:BubbleWrap.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT WAR
User Opinoso don´t respond to my messages about stop deleting a sourced and researched image I provided for the article Rio de Janeiro. He just stated on the history page that the picture Image:Rio de Janeiro 1565.PNG is not aestethically good to the article, and "anyway, old flags are not important". He is in an edit war with me, he just erases the picture, showing a biased judgement. And, worst, he deleted my messages asking for him to stop deleting the image I provided. Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about you....I am just telling you about user Opinoso, you already had discussed with him about another edit war Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Google Adsense logo.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Google Adsense logo.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —PNG crusade bot (feedback) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)