User talk:DanielRigal/2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
al Qaida facilitator and Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri (Section title was originally "reply")
WRT your tags.
I added headings to the tables.
Do I think the term "al Qaida facilitator" is important? Yes. Numerous captives are being held in Guantanamo because someone once accused them of being an "al Qaida facilitator".
What is an "al Qaida facilitator". This phrase is used in numerous official DoD documents. None of them explain what the term means. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- WRT Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri. Yes, it
would be good for the article to give more detail about the guy.
- I think the material we already know is sufficient to merit coverage.
- We know the White House claimed he was a "senior al Qaida facilitator";
- We know the White House claimed his capture was a success;
- We know he is described as significant in the documents from Guantanamo captives;
- We know he gave information during his interrogation;
- We know he disappeared while in US custody, which I think is pretty significant.
- We don't know what information he offered during his interrogation, other than identifying Ali Ahmed Abdullah.
- We don't know what he did to deserve capture.
- We don't know where he is. Geo Swan (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree that we need to improve not delete these articles. It was never my intention that either article should be deleted. I just wanted to flag up that they needed to be improved. I have made a comment to that affect on the AfD for Al Qaida facilitator. What is needed is to make the articles explain the situation (including what is known and not known) in a way that everybody can understand. Unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge of the subjects to be much help with this. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- HOw did this play out? Mathiastck (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The AfD for Al Qaida facilitator is still ongoing and Abu Yasir Al Jaza'iri remains a confusing article which needs work. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Operating context
Hey I beefed up Operating context, and removed your deletion tag. Lemme know if you still find it lacking. I still don't understand the spirit, or perspective, of the deletion process here :) Mathiastck (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kids at SSS
Greetings! Yes, indeed: and you put it well. "Bringing the school into disrepute" is the key phrase. I'm debating, at this point, one or more of the following: 1) hard block of the IP range, giving the contact info of the headmaster, and the names of the kids (that will shut down editing for a quite a large area -- but that would get their attention); 2) telephoning the headmaster as soon as the school is open tomorrow (tonight where I am); 3) writing to them, documenting all of the behavior (much of which is illegal--such as the copyright violation by "MarvinJohnson"; 4) all of the above. It makes me quite indignant to see harassment of a good user (Stepháne) continue for this long, and I think it's time to bring the big hammer down. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks about Golem
ok, thanks. I need lessons. I am a student at university and at wikipedia, too. Again, thanks AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Colleen Wegman
Hello, DanielRigal ... FYI, I touched these articles a few weeks ago:
I agree with your speedy delete request for the first one, and I think that the others could use some more reliable sources that are independent of the wegmans.com website ... maybe a {{Prod}} on the second one would not be declined (I would second it with a {{Prod-2}}) ... the logs show that it has already been speedy deleted once before (CSD A7) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Both Colleen Wegman and Danny Wegman have been redirected to Wegmans Food Markets, so I removed the circular wikilinks in that article. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Harry Potter Game and Film Spells
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Harry Potter Game and Film Spells. The reason is:
- "Indiscriminate and unreferenced list of game trivia" not covered by any CSD
I've put it up for PROD. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Accounting Ethics
Hi. I'm willing to have a look at writing an article for Accounting ethics but I need a bit of context. Can you point me to an example article elsewhere in the Philosophy project so I can see what it is you are looking for? AnthonyUK (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't really have an idea where the article should go but if you look at the historic version before I stubbed it you will know what to avoid. Potentially helpful articles might be Medical ethics, Professional ethics, Legal ethics and Business ethics. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandal!
Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Woland37 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not vandalism to revert the removal of valid and current warnings, as I did. Please read the rules and policies before you make unjustified and offensive accusations. I am not going to revert again, because I respect the "three reverts" rule, but if I see a continued pattern of talk page sanitisation then I will draw this to the attention of an admin. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not harrassing you. I already said that I was not going to revert your talk page again and I now see that you are archiving your talk page so that resolves the whole issue. I don't see what the problem is. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Vandalism on LogMeIn?
There is an IP edit on that subpage. I am not sure if it's vandalism, you might want to check that out here.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. It is fine. The page is a work in progress and it is just somebody answering one of the questions I left on it as being unresolved. Thanks anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok just checking.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sardab
This was not nonsense, and I do not believe it elligible for any form of speedy deletion. Nonsense is intelligible- to quote WP:CSD- "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." This was a good faith article written about what seems to be a non-notable location or 'miracle'- I have prodded the article instead. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I couldn't make any sense out of it to work out exactly what the subject actually was or what was being asserted so I thought nonsense or context would be applicable but maybe that was pushing it too far. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Leach
For the record, Archibald Leach was Cary Grant. DS (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogged.com
As part of my admin duties I moved this article that you had tagged for speedy delete to AfD because the original editor placed the hang-on tag. He has come to me at my talk page asking for further assistance thinking that I had made the original call on its problems. You might like to go to his page here and give him some assistance. He seems genuine to me and with a little help might come on board as another fine editor at wikipedia. Appreciate your time.--VS talk 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I agree that it looks like he is acting in good faith and seems confused. I put a note on the article's talk page but maybe he didn't see it. I will leave a note on his talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers and thank you.--VS talk 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Daniel,
I attempted to add Blogged.com article back in again. This time, I've added the section that addresses the question of "notability" as previously suggested. Please take a look and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank you again for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate your comments and they have been very helpful.
Best Regards,
-Kenneth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellidyr (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
New Company
Hi, I've just posted my first article. I am someone interested in business chose to try to add to the corp. project (i.e. add smaller companies, that are in the news, to Wikipedia). My first article was already flagged for speedy deletion - I've gone to great pains to try to write this with just the facts, track down articles/press, etc. that talk about the company, and cite references. I'd like to have my first article a success - but would apprecitate some guidance! I also have had trouble uploading the logo to the article (I got help from someone else in Wiki to figure out the "non-free/fair use media" angle of things and have it uploaded, but couldn't get it linked to the article). And finally, since the company is SVM I am trying to figure out what to call it so that when one searches for "SVM" it comes up either as the article or at least as an option. Again, any help/guidance is appreciated...I thought I did my due diligence learning what to do before posting my first article but it looks like I need help!Llcavall (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I have added a Welcome message with some helpful links to your talk page. This also explains how to get help if you need it in future.
- Please don't take it personally when an article gets deleted. Wikipedia is not a business directory (see WP:NOT) so it is quite common that articles about smaller companies will be deleted even though they are well written and factual. The problem occurs when the company is not notable enough for inclusion (see WP:N). Your articles on SVM is not currently tagged for deletion although there are tags indicating that there are problems. These tags are not meant to be insulting or annoying. They are there to tell people what needs to be fixed. You should try to sort out each problem and then you can take the tags off.
- The way to cope with alternative names for articles is to use the Redirect tag, which is what I did with your two articles which were the same. This will enable the article to be found under both names but avoids having two copies which might diverge in content. There are lots of things SVM stands for so there is a disambiguation page at SVM. This lists all the relevant articles. You could add your article to this list. Anybody who searches for SVM will see the list and can choose which SVM they are interested in.
- The image stuff is quite complicated and I am probably not the best person to ask as I don't do images much.
- I hope this helps a bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
About the Samuel H. Scripps page
- Daniel: I hope my work on the page for Samuel H. Scripps has helped the site for this very important person in the field of theatre and dance. I tried to make the piece less of an obit, and I just hope you agree. Thanks Weimar03 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Weimar03
- Yes. It is vastly better now. I have taken the tone tag off. Thanks for doing so much work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Goose
FYI: An IP removed the PROD tag so you may wish to comment on the AfD I started. Cheers —Travistalk 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have done so. Thanks for the note. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

