User talk:Dandv

Hello, Dandv!

Due to deletion attempt of another FOSS project we, Linux enthusiasts, encountered strange criterion of notability. So as I see your are familiar with such a inconstancy of WP:N, and, being more familiar with regulations, you could advice us about feature of such an initiative to put special guideline for FOSS.

I've just added some strings and new facts here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

What should we all do for this page become a guideline?

May be we all should gain attention of others wikipedians-linux-enthusiasts to that problem?

Thanks in advance. Mclaudt (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several answers to your question:

The simplest answer, of course, is that it's fun. That was the impetus for a good deal of my articles from la:Pong cervisiale to la:Ludus patibuli to la:Pila Magica 8.

A more serious answer is it helps us get better at Latin (if you want to ask why anybody would want to do that, it's a completely different question).

An often unmentioned answer is that you can honestly find some great things written in Latin and Greek, perspectives that are often unquoted at the English wikipedia, because deletionists don't think it's relevant to use ancient scholarship in a modern encyclopaedia, or because purists think the material belongs at wikisource. Some of the things at la:Infinitas, la:Scacchi, or la:Cannabis is like that. You yourself have argued for English's power as a bearer of information to the masses.

I'm for the use of English as an international language, as well, but not if it means excluding scholarship of natural languages. Nor do I think people should be encouraged to be bilingual, but rather tri or quadlingual. Why? Because I don't think English is as easy as you make it out to be. English is easy at the beginning. As a teacher of English to speakers of many different language families I assure you that, while it is the case that the basics of English are easy to acquire and that, having been experienced to it in movies, ads, films etc, most people have an a priori familiarity with it, mastering English is no easy task.

I would also differ in my estimation of the value of Esperanto or Interlingua. It is these language, with no culture, no history, no soul, that are the wastes of time and money. Learning Latin takes both time and money, but the richness one gleans from such study certainly rewards the effort.

I hope I have answered honestly and diplomatically as I mean in no way to offend. Your cause is an interesting one and, given that you are actively involved in a campaign for globalization of English, your opinion is somewhat more valued than the typical "Latin is a dead language" pundit. Best regards, --Ioscius ^∞ 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiDoc until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly let us please talk about our differences on the Protect IP Act on it's talk page. When you make your opinions in the comment box for your edit it doesn't allow discussion on the topic in question. The Schmidt comment that we have been going back and forth on in the

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Recently I added current status to the Cape Mendocino Light page and saw your location edit and comment about "actually looking at a map" and changing location. Um... I'm going to have to change the location back to where it was before, but yes this is confusing and here's why. The actual site where the light still blinks is an automated facility 40°26′23.66″N 124°24′21.71″W / 40.4399056°N 124.4060306°W / 40.4399056; -124.4060306, the Fresnel of the old Cape light is located at the Humboldt County Fairgrounds (being disassembled by Coast Guard lampist for temporary storage and new display) 40°35′13.45″N 124°15′53.17″W / 40.5870694°N 124.2647694°W / 40.5870694; -124.2647694, and the restored cast iron old lighthouse building is located where you put the map push pin, in Shelter Cove 40°01′20″N 124°04′10″W / 40.02222°N 124.06944°W / 40.02222; -124.06944. Unfortunately, since the light still flashes at the Cape Mendocino location, Wiki style is to use that location for the Light, as that is the official location in sailing handbooks and sailing maps around the world. I will however make it really clear about the locations of the historical items as well as add more information on the automated light. Please let me know if you see any problems with the article after these edits! Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor

I took out the detailed history of the lawsuit that was dismissed. WP is not a soapbox

WP:SOAP

To reply, leave a comment on Modern.Jewelry.Historian's

Learn more about

Hi Dandv - What's up with Mela? I never heard of the company, and

It seems like Dandy cleaned up the section pretty good. Wikipedia certainly is not a soapbox, but I think mentioning the lawsuit is significant and gives balance, especially when MELA won. I think the info is important, but lets keep it down to a sentence or two. Did this company create any other products? Certainly a scanner that can detect skin cancer is important. I would like to see this article lengthened. Can we get an image of this scanner? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MJH, if you don't give a fuck, then leave the article alone, eh? I've clearly marked it as a stub. What I wrote is all I care to know about MELA; others are welcome to improve it. Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project after all.-- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's play nice. I am sure that you both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I played very nice. Didn't delete anyone's work. Didn't use cuss-word tags like

WP:DGAF. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. Everyone has had a chance to drop an F-bomb. (except me) Can we turn our thoughts tward the article itself? I rather like the article in it's present state. I put in a bit of work that I (hope) will satisfy both? Basically, is everyone reasonably happy with the article in it's present state? Personally, I find the idea of a cancer-detecting scanner very "star-treky". It would also be nice if we could find a usable photo of the device. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the edit which you are probably actually concerned about is this one, not done by me. i removed this prod, and only said that if someone feels this is not notable, it needs to go to AFD instead, as the references are clearly indicative of at least a potentially notable subject. if i thought it needed to go there, i would have AFD'd it myself. i didnt. i rescued it from a proposed deletion, and added it to the San Francisco Bay Area (sfba) categories (and probably the wikiproject on its talk page, so that if it was AFD'd it would be listed there and get more commentators, and a better chance of rescue.) This is a good reason to assume good faith and temper our language when working here, as we can all misread edit histories. I have looked through at least 1,000 SFBA related articles in the last few months, to better categorize them, including all new SFBA articles. my list of AFD's is on my userpage at the bottom. I think you will agree the few i AFD'd were not very notable, much less than Mosaic (i redirected some middle school articles as well, per usual outcome for such). My goal has been to improve the overall coverage of the bay area, by making sure all possible articles are categorized as SFBA related, badly written articles are improved, and the few nonnotable, obviously promotional articles are either suggested for deleted or somehow improved. I think i have been fair to them. I'm sorry if my edit summary sounded harsh. i just wanted to make it clear that i was not ideologically opposed to anyone elses reasonable ideas for tagging articles, including afd, which can sometimes help an article. PROD should not be used if there is any chance the subject is notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool. I'm an inclusionist. Keep up the good work! -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's very first revision did make claims of significance. And the rules for CSDA7 state "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 10:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BAM Energy Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAM Energy Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Google barge concept.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in

talk) 14:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Replaceable fair use File:Google barge BAL0011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Google barge BAL0011.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Google barges BAL0001 and BAL0010.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image copyright tag

; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with

talk) 14:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft article, Draft:Xshell

Hello, Dandv. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Xshell

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission

and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

this link

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Xshell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xshell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xshell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

talk) 04:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Advice for list of home automation software

Hi Dan, I could use your advice: List_of_home_automation_software seems very much unuseful because major players are not mentioned, while some irrelevant software is listet. Additionally, several attempts to add the key players have failed. I am experienced in the field but also failed miserably to add the respective articles (I spent hours researching and documenting). I am totally discouraged and I won't restart from scratch, I just wanted to improve Wikipedia. Could you add your advice on talk:List_of_home_automation_software about how to progressively improve that list? It just seems unfesible to me to first write comprehensive articles before giving a useful overview of the relevant players. Thanks! --TomRoad-1 (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GScrypto

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You have not done anything wrong! This is a welcome message for all cryptocurrency editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply