User talk:DanBealeCocks/Archive 1

helpme[edit]

I do a search for "Proffesional" [sic] because I want to correct it to "professional". I find very many articles that, in my opinion, could be deleted. Is it okay for me to PROD many articles, or should I limit myself to one or two PRODs per day?

I sometimes feel a bit guilty about PRODing because often these articles are a person's only wikipedia edits, and a PROD isn't a nice welcome to wikipedia.

I welcome any advice. DanBeale 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, DanBeale! I am sure that many users, such as those on new pages patrol, regularly tag a relatively large amount of articles with {{prod}}. However, consider only tagging a few at a time at first, and monitoring the outcome, so as to not be overwhelmed and so that you can get a feel for the processes involved. It is entirely up to you, though. Also remember that it might be better to nominate an article for speedy deletion or at articles for deletion, depending on the article and circumstances.

As for your first statement, keep in mind that sometimes redirects are created in order to cater for common mis-spellings when searching for an article. For example, Proffesional (although it doesn't currently exist) could be created as a redirect to Professional.

I hope this helps. Feel free to put {{helpme}} back up if you have any more questions, or leave a message on my talk page. —Xhantar^Talk 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Soane[edit]

Hi Dan. Thanks for the personal explanation about the prod. I can see where you are coming from tbh, as there are plenty of sport stubs for people with very little claim to fame. I remember there being a section in WP:Notability about professional sportsmen and had a quick look for it. Alas, I think editing of the policy has removed it and all I can come up with is this, which you are of course familiar with and I imagine is the reason why you prodded Stuart Soane.

My personal view is that for the player in question to claim notability, they should have at least played for their side's first team (provided that it is a pro team), which Soane has done. See Celtic F.C.#Reserve & Youth squad or Manchester United F.C. Academy for a whole range of articles on players who have not achieved this feat and are considerably more worthy of deletion.

As for inherent notability, I would tend to side with User:Walton monarchist89's interpretation over User: Seraphimblade's: if an article has little more than directory information it is certainly a stub and requires expansion but doesn't necessarily qualify for deletion. In Stuart Soane' particular case, he is at a disadvantage in comparison with an equivalent player for one of the Old Firm or the Edinburgh sides in terms of non-trivial coverage in independent sources, in that local papers in the Highland area (eg Inverness Courier) do not maintain an online archive of stories in the manner of The Scotsman (Edinburgh) or The Herald (Glasgow), making citing retrospectively difficult. User:Blnguyen's argument on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#"Multiple non-trivial publications" and priority of criteria expresses well the problems of media coverage as being the only basis for worthiness for inclusion.

As it is, I will add an outside source, infobox and project details to the page. I would not necessarily contest it's deletion, however would suggest that an across the board policy such as WP:Notability (sportspersons) would be useful and that its position should be enforced evenly, so that people who are attached to, but haven't played for, popular sides such as Man Utd or Celtic are treated on a par with those that have played professionally with less popular teams such as Inverness CT. Caledonian Place 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just came accross this, the notability content I mention above that has since been removed from wikipedia:Notability (people), on the WikiProject Football page:

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.

Caledonian Place 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question[edit]

Regarding your question at the recently closed WP:CN thread, the fact that this editor admits to having been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital after a run-in with the police is very relevant to establishing the need for a community ban: it establishes a likelihood that his comments go beyond normal WP:NPA into the sort of sexual fixation that could lead to stalking and other intolerable behavior. The community deserves to make a fully informed decision and I have no apologies for reposting that voluntary disclosure. Durova^Charge! 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user should have been banned. ~~Most convicted sex offenders do not have a psychiatric history. Most people with a mental health problem are at more risk of harm than of causing harm. Dan Beale 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)~~ I'm just not sure whether a the psychiatric stuff is relevant. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and should not be tolerated. The reason for that bad behaviour is probably not relevant, and I do not believe that an admission of a psych history makes threats more real. Dan Beale 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did no harm to include it then, since you agreed that the actions were bannable on other grounds, and that particular self-disclosure did have a bearing on my opinion, particularly because of its implication that the individual was committed to a facility for the criminally insane - or at least that the psychiatric dignosis made him violent. As an onsite self-disclosure it was perfectly compliant with policy to mention that information at the ban discussion. Durova^Charge! 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimping Chicago[edit]

Well, Chris is going to do everything in his power and beyond to prevent discussion of the issue, so it's kinda moot. As a woman on Wikipedia I am used to this kind of crap, though, and it doesn't bother me as much as the inane arguments people offer up, and being called a troll.... Thanks for the notes of support. KP Botany 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

multiple that's[edit]

I ran across your comment with the sentence 'Did you know that that that that woman used should have been a this?' I love this sentence. Did you come up with it? Or someone you know? Or you don't know/remember? Comment back here or on my page. I'll check back. Thanks, have a nice one. Joshua Crowgey 09:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Hi. Thanks for raising the report on AIV, and for pointing out that you are not aware of the warning process - hopefully I can help. As the user has not been warned previously I gave them a first level test warning {{test1}}, which I would escalate up to {{test3}} or {{test4}}. If the user continued to vandalise after one of those "final warnings", they can be reported on AIV and will likely be blocked by an admin. A full list of specific warnings can be found here, and you will notice that they all follow the same approach of escalation from first level warnings. Let me know if you need any further help, and thanks again for the report. Cheers TigerShark 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Over at WP:RFCN, you said "It must be frustrating to be told that a username is confusing by someone called jmlk17, eh?". I'm not trying to pick a fight, but am rather curious what that statement means. Just a curiousity thing really. I've been around here for quite some time, and no one has ever complained, nor commented about my username, so I was just wondering. Thanks. Jmlk 1 7 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Jmlk 1 7 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-proxamol[edit]

Thanks for the note. I've removed "Withdrawn" from the infobox. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your username[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

contains a vulgar name for male genitals

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. Anita Gowe-Toda Toylett 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is all[edit]

Arbitration Committee votes[edit]

Unfortunately, I have taken the measure of indenting (and thus discounting) your votes in the Arbitration Committee elections. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote, the requirements for voting are that users must have at least 150 edits to main article space before November 1 of this year. Your current count is below that. I encourage you to contribute a little more to the encyclopedia and to participate in next year's elections. Best regards, — TKD::Talk 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commas?[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in *why* comma separated lists are better than line-break separated lists. Thanks. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My humble apologies for answering your question so late – I didn't notice that subpage-talkpage until now. Most of the reasoning of why line break seperated lists are redundant can be found at this discussion on the talk page of the template in question. There was also a discussion – in which I participated a little more actively – on the WP:MOS talk page, but it is now buried somewhere in the endless deeps of the talk archive, so forgive me for not digging it up. As for my personal reasoning, I am sorry to tell you that I can't give it to you right now, as I have still to outline my reasoning in words (for the sake of the discussion and the subpage to which you replied to), which is one of the things I have on my "to-do list", I just haven't found the time yet. ~ twsX · ^T_C · Typo-Warning! ~ 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started: User:Twsx/Commas_vs._Linebreaks#Why_commas.3F - I am not through the discussion yet, but the majority of the argument are listed. ~ twsX · ^T_C · Typo-Warning! ~ 14:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Dear DanBealeCocks, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

swearing[edit]

i agree, there shouldn't be double standards on wikipedia, it sets a bad precedent, maybe i should be banned for what i said. Maybe it's different, because anyone who reads any post by you sees you user name, but with me, they only look for one or two posts and they get offende, talk to me on my discussion page. Tom.mevlie (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name[edit]

There is nothing wrong with your user name. Although some people may feel offended it is a name used for surname. Cock (surname). Igor Berger (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

swearing[edit]

You know what Dan? I think this could be the begining of a long and beautiful friendship. Tom.mevlie (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

If it weren't me up there facing that tribunal for swearing, i would have said the same things you said. I hate, hate, double standards, especially when they say that everyone is equal, what do you think? Tom.mevlie (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You right, but where does one draw the line? Tom.mevlie (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Setter[edit]

I removed the cleanup tag you put there. If you think it should go back I am not going to edit war over it, but I feel strongly that some commentary on the talk page is required rather than a "drive by flagging". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a few comments on the talk page of that article. I noticed that the article is rated as start class by its project, and my (probably over harsh) comments should be read with that in mind. Kind regards. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone else disagreed with your tagging/ I think your comments were useful, btw. I think they were over pedantic. I see no objection to the tag, but do not have the skill to edit this article. So I am "ignoring" the issue. Back to you, I think. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]