User talk:DavidHalko

Afara Websystems
Thanks for this excellent article :). One thing; you might want to consider categorising it. If you need any help with trying to do that, give me a poke. One other thing; have you considered submitting it to WP:DYK? It gets featured on the main page, which in my experience amounts to a free cleanup and expansion (as well as a way to get your article publicly recognised). Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I don't know how to categorize it or submit it. Could you please help me by doing that? I am still learning... :-(

DavidHalko (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Alright, Categories essentially group similar articles; Category:Biology, for example. You stick them at the bottom of articles (without the first colon). One good way to do it is to look at what subject the article falls into and type Category:that subject into the "search" bar. If you are thinking along the same lines as other users a dropdown box of possible categories should appear. Afara Websystems, for example, is a now-defunct company that was based in Santa Clara. As such, the categories used so far have been Category:Defunct computer companies of the United States and Category:Companies based in Santa Clara County, California. In theory, all articles should be categorised like that, but we often have a backlog found at WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. If you're at a loss at what to do on Wikipedia, projects like that (which can be found at the Community Portal) are always a good way of improving things around here. If you need any more help with anything at all, feel free to poke me on my talkpage. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and COI
I wanted to contact you personally to discuss these issues in more detail, as I feel the Pro-life talk page is not the proper venue.

Vandalism is an editor going to a pop star's page and writing "POOOP!" Good faith removal of new content, which is under dispute on the talk page, by an editor in good standing (say an admin) is never vandalism. ''Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.''

Conflict of Interest mostly involves editing to promote one's self, employer, or affiliated organization. What you seem to suggest is that someone who is [position x] has a conflict of interest in editing the [position y] page (and, I wonder, someone who is [position y] doesn't)? In my opinion, neither is a case of conflict of interest, unless it was an employee of say [a company whose money stream originates via positon x], and then it would only be a COI if the edit was promotional in nature. I could make the case that you are politically and/or religiously affiliated with the idea that members of the [position y] movement have systematically been victims of violent acts, and that your editing was to promote an idea to which you are affiliated, and thus you have a clear conflict of interest. However, this would be an abuse of COI, as we don't ban declared Republicans or Democrats from editing US political articles. There may be a grey area in there somewhere, but your accusations of a COI editing on the [position x] article don't mesh up to our policy. If you want a 3rd opinion, I'd urge you to ask the question on the COI noticeboard WP:COIN.

Finally, I'd caution you against making accusations against other editors on article talk pages. We have a strong "no personal attack" WP:NPA policy. You should be discussing article content, not editor conduct, on article talk pages. If you feel an editor needs to be warned or discussed, contact them on their user talk page, or ask for discussion on one of the various conduct noticeboards. We try to assume good faith WP:AGF with all editors, and it is harmful to productive article talk discussion to throw in personal accusations against other editors.

With all that said, I wish you the best. If you have any question about any of this, or about Wikipedia rules, I'd be glad to assist you or point you in the right direction at least. I know having your contributions removed can feel hurtful and be jarring. Keep in mind, if we assume good faith, editors rarely are being malicious when they revert. Per WP:BRD, we actually suggest reverting bold new edits that editors feel need further work and discussion. And accordingly, re-adding the bold new material is considered disruptive (but not necessarily the initial removal itself). I hope this helps! Good luck!-Andrew c [talk] 21:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the title of the article in question or the content merely brings bias into the discussion.

Adding a recent news article from a recent violent event towards peaceful protesters is hardly a bold new edit. Reverting of that addition could be referred to as vandalism, but I don't recall having levied that accusation the first time. Reverting the current news event cited the reason that there was no pattern. Once that reason was understood, research was done and historical events were inserted in conjunction with the current news event to the article, to resolve the former revert.

The same editor reverted it again, this time based upon a self-purported anti-position, where the editor further indicating that they were a "denier" that the events regularly happen (even when demonstrated through multiple facts posted from multiple public records.) Perhaps self-professed belief and denial of multiple historical events published by multiple public records could be more of a sign of delusion than COI. Perhaps the repeated removal of historical content should have been considered vandalism. There was no longer a valid reason for removal of the content since the cited conditions were met.

After engaging the editor in question, self-professed belief in conjunction with being anti-position were advocated as the reasons for removing historical events, COI was cited. The historical events may need reformatting by editors, but the facts and content should have been ultimately been retained. Good editors should provide the information in a reasonable format and allow others to form their beliefs from the facts based upon the content. Good editors do not remove multiple facts against their position citing personal belief as the basis for their decision. Editing pages to remove historical facts which do not support the personal point of view of the editor makes Wikipedia pages appear like propaganda. DavidHalko (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:UltraSPARCT1 Die Micrograph DavidHalko.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:UltraSPARCT1 Die Micrograph DavidHalko.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the licensing for the technical drawing that I produced. DavidHalko (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UltrasparcIV.png)
Thanks for uploading File:UltrasparcIV.png. 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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IllumosPhoenixRGB.png
Thanks for uploading File:IllumosPhoenixRGB.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ultrasparc t2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ultrasparc t2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)