User talk:Daniel best

January 2009[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added a {{hangon}} template to an article, Dave Simons. In order for an administrator to evaluate whether the article should be speedy deleted or not, we request that you provide reasoning, on the article's talk page, for why it should remain. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Dave wall03 sm.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dave wall03 sm.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some idiot deleted the page already? Do you even READ what the pages are about?? This is insane!!!

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Daniel, I'm concerned about this edit [1]. If you disagree with Gwen (or any other admin) and their decisions, take it to any of the appropriate forums I've given you links to. Issuing demands and accusations isn't going to help you get the Simons article on wikipedia one iota. Gwen's already made her call on this article, insulting her won't make a difference. Take it to one of the appropriate forums, and please try and remain civil. It'll help you tremendously here at wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil. As for the other links - I have no idea how to lodge an appeal against what this 'Gwen' person has done. It's all arbitrary really and I believe I have a right to speak my mind - especially when someone deletes a page because they claim only one reference was cited - which is a lie - and the page was clearly under construction, as was stated on the page itself. I have the feeling that this 'Gwen' person has done this for their own reason and that 'she' will not be going back on it as it might make 'her' look bad.

Not good. More advice on how to appeal this would be appreciated, because the links themselves don't make anything clear at all. I do appreciate the assistance.Daniel best (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for the first pie of advice, calm down about Gwen. As I told you, articles at wikipedia don't need to be in the mainspace while they're still under construction. She probably did what most other admins would do, which is delete an article that's in the wrong space.

If you think the article was fine as is and want another opinion on the deletion, make a case at WP:DRV. That's the page for deletion review. If you want to work on the article again and get the sourcing worked out before you put it in the mainspace, then ask an administrator to put the page in your workspace. Any admin can do it. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. The links are vague at best and it's not entirely clear to me as to how to format the response/request for undeletion, but I have done so. I have nothing but contempt for a person who deletes pages from this project before they're finished and without consultation though. Apologies to you if she is a friend, but she might want to simply ask next time before pulling the trigger. I do notice she has a nice, big page devoted to herself, but I can't help but think that she is the one who is "is not inherently notable". I'll wait and see what happens, but this kind of behaviour does not do the Wiki any favours.Daniel best (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand Wikipedia. I want to help but I won't if you carry on being so uncivil. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping anyway, unless you consider deleting an entry without reading it or checking it first to be helpful. Fret not 'Gwen', I've blogged this and will make sure as many people I can reach are aware of the insane way you run things. You need to actually go out into the real world and discover how things are done, and you're right - I don't understand the Wikipedia, a place where rules are made at random by people who have zero understanding of the way research, writing and publishing really works.

You want to help? Do the right thing and allow Dave his entry. Anything else is reprehensible.Daniel best (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much under these attacks and threats. I recuse from anything having to do with this user or the topic. Anyone else can handle this, however they see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, your continued personal attacks and your attitude towards this entire process really makes it hard for people to help you. I've already pointed you towards DRV, if you feel you have a further issue, might I suggest you go to the administrator's noticeboard? That would be a quick way to be heard by admins. Dayewalker (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue though - 'Gwen' did absolutely nothing to help in the first place. She never gave any acceptable excuse, other than hide behind policy, and offered no meaningful assistance other than to direct me towards her own page. If 'Gwen' had been more understanding and had actually explained her reasons from the outset none of this would have happened. As it is I can't help but wonder why she is on the Wiki, other than to delete entries without first checking them.

I think I'll allow someone else to post the Simons entry and then I shall edit it to add the proper references - I'm sure that is allowed?Daniel best (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this [2] was your first contact with Gwen. Please reread that comment (which starts with "WTF?"). It's fairly easy to see how this got sideways, with you starting in with personal attacks immediately. You know what they say, a pinch of sugar is more powerful than a whole page full of calling someone blind and asking them resentful questions.

I feel pretty confident that at some point in the future, the article will be placed in your (or someone else's) userspace and fixed up to meet wikipedia standards. I'll help if I can.

However, you're going to have to realize that there are ways things are done on wikipedia and getting angry won't help. When you don't understand something, please ask. Don't automatically assume conspiracy. I'll wager you a vial of web-fluid that if you had just asked an admin (even Gwen) to give you a copy of the article to finish adding the sources to, they would have done it. Ask me, ask an admin who works in the comics section, file a request at WP:AN, but please try and resolve the problems peacefully. Everything is easier when we just get along.

Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I've yet to launch a personal attack against 'Gwen' - seriously. I have a copy of the article in question and together with another we shall attempt, once more, to place Dave on the Wiki where he belongs. I shant be asking 'Gwen' for any assistance, as she has stated, she won't be offering any. I shall protest vigorously though if the entry is again removed without consultation by 'Gwen' or anyone else for that matter.

And I did ask an admin originally. If you check the logs you'll see that I did everything that was asked of me originally, including posting the 'hangon' and 'underconstraction' tags in when the first admin popped by, I even posted an explanation as to what I was doing, which leads me to believe that the other admin merely leapt in and deleted without reading anything related to the entry. Kinda sad really.

What I want is for the entry to be allowed to go ahead, and finished, without it being cut off in mid-sentence, so to speak. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, a lot of it will reference my own work, that's because I'm the one who did it. Even if it goes under a different name it'll still be my work that's referenced, same as several other Wiki entries reference my work. If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for Dave.

With this in mind I can safely assume that a person cannot work on an entry that relates to themselves, as the Wiki will not recognise them as a valid source?Daniel best (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have loaded it all in again, with references this time. I trust that's the sort of detail that is required? If not then tell me where the hell am I going wrong.Daniel best (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rousseau-366x274.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Rousseau-366x274.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Rousseau-366x274.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Rousseau-366x274.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i fink u got ur dob wong on da dave simons page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.51.223 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dave simons.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dave simons.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]