Hi there, I'm completely new to this! I had a disagreement with some editor on this page Talk:Habib_Ali_al-Jifri. He won't let me edit, and seems to be unreasonable. Could you advise. Thanks! Geriatricmusings (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not blocked from editing and never have been. The problem is that this has turned into a bit of an edit war. I can't tell who is right but what I can do is try to draw a few more people in. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Just to clarify, I meant to say that the other person kept reversing my edits. Didn't mean I was blocked. Thanks again! Geriatricmusings (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That article I made a correction to is debatable. If left unchanged the truth will be unknown to the general public. let me know if you wish too see factual evidence and i can link youTrident162 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The text as it is is correct. It describes factually what the BHIs believe and claim. It doesn't say whether they are right or wrong. It is not our job to say whether specific religious beliefs are right or wrong, just to explain what they are. Hence your "correction" was incorrect. You may well have some texts that you believe will elevate these facts about belief into proven facts about reality. If so, you are mistaken. These beliefs can not be proven, just as the beliefs of other religious groups who hold other incompatible beliefs can not be proven. Whatever you hope to persuade us with will not be able to meet our criteria for a reliable source of facts so there is no point in trying. It is far better to leave the article as it is. Let it say what the BHIs believe and let the readers decide for themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello DanielRigal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gala Tent, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The patents and awards are enough of an indication of notability for A7, you'll have to go to AfD for a decision on notability. I don't think it's very spammy really, certainly not beyond the realm of some editing. . Thank you. GedUK  13:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason it rang strong alarm bells for me is that it is recognisably the same content as was speedily deleted as spam when an editor with a blatant COI tried to ram it in a while back. For anybody who had not seen that I guess it would pass a quick inspection. I am pretty certain that the only people in the world who care about this company are its owners and employees. They may have learned subtlety but they have not learned to respect Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopaedia rather than a billboard. The awards are probably bogus too. "Chamber of commerce" is not an organisation and the "references" go straight back to the company's own website. I'll take it to AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(see last 2 pages of Observer article referencing Comisar)

No.

I have made my views perfectly clear on the talk page. The lobbying has to stop. The registration of SPAs has to stop. I will not be canvassed for this lost cause. This has to stop!--DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to give you a final warning before reporting your for sockpuppetry but I see that somebody else has already reported you. Bad luck. Game over. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rigal, Greetings, I am contacting you on your talk page, as you recently tagged the Ecological art article with multiple tags, when in fact you may have intended to tag the Environmental Art article (an older article.) Ecological Art and Environmental Art are two separate genres of contemporary art. I believe it is possible that you may have mistakenly confused the two articles, and the reason for this is that the academia.edu article you cite (as copyright violation) is very similar to the Wikipedia Environmental Art page, but not at all like the Ecological art page. I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and remove the multiple tags on the Ecological Art page; and if not, kindly have a conversation about the rationale for these actions (which seem like quite harsh disciplinary actions from this perspective.) Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not mixed them up although they do both overlap. I am going to remove one of the tags, as I an no longer convinced that the copyvio issue is real. I think the other tags are valid but I'll have another look. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. I have done that, including taking the POV tag off. I still think there is a tone problem. Things like "Ecoartists strive to inform, inspire, critique, and reform human behavior" are borderline meaningless and seem to be constructed to sound like they carry a whole lot more meaning than they do. I know a lot of art publications lap this stuff up but it doesn't fit well here. It seems unjustifiably grandiose and obtuse. If that stuff can be trimmed down then the other tags can go too. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for your help. I will work on the tone of the article. May I seek your advise in the future to determine if I'm on track? Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rigal, I have made significant progress on the Ecological Art page, addressing all of the issues you mentioned. I kindly ask that you remove the tags you placed on the article. It contains no personal reflections, opinions, feelings or subjectivity. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI you are mentioned here. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oy vey! Thanks for letting me know. I've replied as best I can to such nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Daniel,

I am utterly disgusted that you take pleasure in deleting the work of people who actually spent time improving an article. It is easy for you to scream "copyright" and hammer "backspace". The worst thing is that you're not even paid by anyone. You are not even affiliated with my school and happen to appropriate that page.

I am a student commissioned by my IT teacher to improve the page. The page was clear, informative and visually attractive, but you just ruined it. In what authority do you control public information about a school you've never been to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrorangina (talk • contribs)

OK. In that case you have a conflict of interests and you need to stop spamming Wikipedia now. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Spam? I do not see how providing a clearer picture of a school's history is spam. Please explain. I have no conflict of interests but only want to make historical facts more accessible. How can history be trademarked? So, every historian talks about the same things, but in different words? This school is a public state school. This means free education to all. How is the school doing advertising? The school is funded by the state 100% and pupils are automatically feeded into the nearest regional school. Your 'deletionist' title says everything. Some people build, and you come and take pleasure in stomping out information that make children more educated. The whole point of wikipedia is freedom of information. Everything that was written is public knowledge. I bet you also hate on Snowden, do you? Btw, the school website is not updated, and you wrote the name of a rector that has left the position already.

This page is intended to provide historical background. The pictures are pictures of a govt building. The school is non-profit and has no patents. I am feeling you delete new and weaker pages to boost your ego and then display e-badges of honor for your 'contributions'

Imagine a world where there are more deletionists than builders, and wikipedia wouldnt exist.

Do you think you provide better insight than me on that particular page? Stop copy-pasting admin rules and swinging banning threats to intimidate people please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrorangina (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is quite simple. The school has a website and Facebook page. Those are not ours to copy. They both exist to promote the school, which is perfectly legitimate where they are, but not on Wikipedia. As soon as that material gets copied here it ceases to be legitimate. It becomes copyright infringement, plagiarism and borderline spam because of its promotional tone.

You have a conflict of interests, even if you are not aware of it. As soon as the school asked you to edit here on its behalf that conflict arises between your responsibility to the school and your responsibility to Wikipedia. This same issue applies to everybody, including myself. For example, I am careful not to edit articles about my employer because then I could get into the same sort of mess even without meaning to.

If it makes you feel any better, you are very far from being the first student to find themselves in this sort of mess and I appreciate that it is not primarily your fault. Rather than take those warnings too personally, think of them as warnings to the school as a whole.

Let me make a suggestion. Rather than complain at me for upholding the rules, show the history of what has happened here to your IT teacher and let him or her explain to you why things have gone wrong. It may be that you misunderstood the task you had been assigned or it may be that the teacher overstepped the mark and really did assign you a task that put you into a position of conflicted interests which could only end badly. If the school really did drop you into this then it probably owes you an apology.

I have been adding to the alumni list in the article. I had already fixed the rector to match what it says on the school's own website and some of your pictures have been put back in. The article is better now than before either of us started on it. In fact, the article is actually looking better than it has done for many years. So, even if things have not gone the way you hoped, the article has improved and, despite the warnings, you have not been blocked. So long as you don't try to do the same things again, you don't need to worry about being blocked.

As I say, show this to your IT teacher. That will prove that you really did try to perform your assignment and you can probably both take away some lessons about how Wikipedia works. This hasn't been a disaster. This may even turn out to be a good thing in the long run. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reread the article and I agree that it does look better now. Reading again the history that the website provides more carefully, I do see the impartiality of certain statements and the insignificance of some paragraphs. Please excuse the accusing tone of my previous complaints, I believe you must have also experienced the shock of finding out that the 1 hour you spent working on something went up in smoke. Especially when someone who has no clue what the school is about starts aggressively throwing words like "ban, copyright infringement, stop spamming wiki, your purpose is flawed by conflict of interest".

I'll just repost what I wrote on my talk page in case you missed it: think really hard where the line is between "deleting what I perceive as vandalism" and "vandalising what someone added". You could have discussed matters and explained each and every edit instead of just wiping it all out.

Thank you for at least trying to see what I was aiming for, and for reversing some of your destructions.

I volunteered for this side-job. I wanted a page that would provide as much insight as possible. I thought a big block of text on the school's history would be more instructive, and would be worth adding despite its flaws.

Don't worry, I won't ever contribute to wikipedia henceforth. I thought people here collaborated to expand the world's knowledge but it's just a tug-of-war between writers and moderators. Nevertheless, I do see the need for watchdogs like you to keep information neutral, thanks for that. Best, ...

Last notes: Could you add the motto back?

Edit: just saw your reply. "you could" is not a threat ok. You could be a hero. You could step on a banana peel. See? I don't know why you feel like everyone's attacking you. I'm just telling you that both you and I are trying to write about something that belongs to a 3rd party and that 3rd party happens to be a country. You waved your wikipedia ban and report threats as if you were some kind of god here, thus why I tried to make you realise that it is not the case: both you and I need to follow rules. So please stop victimising yourself. And you still keep up with the agressiveness... " I'll let it slide if you do not raise it again.""if I did not know that you are still at school I would have reported that threat."" not subject to the laws of any country". Again, please read my initial post, before the edit. I mean no harm. I'm even thankful for your help in the end. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrorangina (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

[1], [2] 68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

They both have edited the List of Blue's Clues episodes article. Abel Lawrence (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Daniel,

The IP's who are making malicious edits to WP:Sandbox also targeted me earlier for reverting their edits there. I will proabally be opening a sock investigation when I get back to the cottage...thanks for your diligence!

TJH2018 talk 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Woah, I just saw your delete vote here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapring language. Your accompanying explanation was awesome! :D --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Or at least defender of ME! Thanks for jumping to my defense. It's been taken care of. MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work cleaning up the edit spree by Graduateandyou. I see the account has been ifdef blocked. Jeh (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your Linda ikeji edit. I understand what you meant. Aghachi7 (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

who ever you are you stalked a ref. in 25 minutes, and i won a black dial daytona.. thanks so much.. it was a gamble on my part but 90% of the real art market is fake..and i do some nice consulting while living in south america..

You are not a jet setting, high rolling, money spinning art forgery ninja. You are not a consultant. You do not have clients. Even within the circles you do move in, you do not have anybody stupid enough to bet against your vandalism being reverted. Nobody bets that a man who sets fire to his own feet will not be in pain. You are fooling nobody.

You did not win or purchase an expensive watch but, on the off-chance that you do have some sort of cheap timepiece on your wrist. please check the time. What time is it? That's right. It is half past time to stop vandalising Wikipedia with your self-aggrandising drivel.

Seriously. You are making a complete fool of yourself! You need to go away and think about something more productive you could do with your life instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at Eagle Radio as the page doesn't include any reliable references. You had a big input in this article when presenter names were removed. Although a radio station, it appears the station isn't notable enough of an article. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As it is a major ILR radio station I think it only needs references to prove that this is the case in order to justify an article. Of course, without other references we can't go much beyond that. In this case we don't seem to. The article is pretty much a stub, which is OK. If there was a lot of additional content then that would need additional references or need to be removed. The one problem I do see at the moment is that the reference for the DAB launch date is no good. So there is a lot of room for improvement here but nothing to question whether the article should exist. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of Eagle Radio (above), you're the main go to man when it comes to articles like this. Please take a look at Peter Gordon (radio presenter), a presenter on ER and see what you think. Personally, there are not enough reliable sources / refs to prove this person is notable or worthy of an article. If we created articles for everyone who had appeared in panto or was a programme controller we would have more than enough articles for non-notable people. I also feel there is a case of self-promotion in this article! RadioAnorakUK (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing evidence that it is him writing this, so I'm not sure about self-promotion. It could be the work of a fan. I am not seeing it as a slam dunk deletion candidate but it is questionable. I have tagged for reference improvement and put a note on the talk page. If better references are found then that is fair enough. If not then it is borderline. It might well fail to survive at AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How long is usually given for someone to make improvements to an article if it is in question? Someone has said on the article they will go through refs "when they have time". Of course, this could take a while. Just because somebody was in panto doesn't make them notable. As you say, it's questionable. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has had links and refs added but still don't seem suitable for the person to have an article. As I said in the talk page of the article, if we included refs or everyone who was in panto, we eould have a number of pointless articles. I have been in panto myself. Does that mean I warrant an article? I've also worked for a number of charities. This is a local radio presenter who, it appears, has a fan who is adamant he deserves his own page. Thoughts? RadioAnorakUK (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Have noticed you leaving admonishing messages on the last few Caidin sockpuppet pages, which plainly haven't discouraged him from vandalising Wikipedia. I'd recommend reading WP:RBI and saving your breath. --McGeddon (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. You are right. The reason I started doing it was that he was describing the pages he couldn’t edit as "broken" and I wondered whether he really didn't understand what was going on. It is hard to know who we are dealing with with Caidin. I can't tell whether he is intentionally disruptive or whether he has genuine mental problems. I am inclined to think the latter because the content of his vandalism is so consistent. It suggests a world that only exists in his own head, but which is as real to him as anything else, which he finds frustrating that nobody else shares. I was hoping that a very short, very clear message might be able to reach him in the way that the more verbose warning templates did not but it has not done any good and I'll stop trying. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

what do I need to edit to not get the page deleted? Vylevylevyle (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There will be a discussion here, which you can contribute to, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyle. It won't be me who decides the outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

how do I add to it to that discussion? I know that your saying I'm not using notable sources but i literally cite my info using a page from the google search provided by wikipedia. Vylevylevyle (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What you do is edit the deletion discussion page. You add your comment at the bottom or underneath somebody else's comment if you are replying to them. You need to take care not to accidentally alter other people's comments. Normally you indent your comment with a bullet point and indent more for a reply. You should say whether you think the article should be kept or deleted. Normally people do that by putting the word "keep" or "delete" in bold and then giving your reasons. It doesn't matter if you don't format it perfectly.

Here is a random example of another discussion so you can see how it goes: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aynishan_Quliyeva.

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I won 41.249.4.30 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done. You must be very proud. Now please take your winnings home and enjoy them quietly while the grown ups write an encyclopaedia without any further interruptions. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think he was talking about the Egg-and-spoon race. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a super inactive Wikipedia contributor - two edits I think in over five years, although I do make monthly payments to support Wikipedia.

So I want to take care not to come across as a troll (vandal?) in editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanstead_High_School in connection with the “Speak Out” Challenge / Leanne Mohamad case

I see you reversed an edit expressed in clearly pejorative terms - how could this have been done better, or should I just try to do it better and see if you / others reverse my attempt?

Silverdale (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The wording was very far from neutral and there were no references given. Also it named a pupil, which I don't think is a good thing to do at all, even if they did do a bad/stupid thing. I don't think it is right that we publish something that could haunt somebody for the rest of their life for one stupid thing they did when they were a kid. Even if they grow up and change their views later this could still be following them around long after we have all forgotten about it.

To be included, which I do not recommend, the incident would have to be shown to be notable by providing reliable references, described in a neutral way (without opinion or commentary) and I would very strongly suggest that it should only refer to "a pupil" without giving their name.

I can imagine that people are angry about what has happened but we don't want to go overboard and make things worse.

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any problem getting reliable references - the facts of the matter - the content of the video, that it won first prize, and that it was then removed from the charity's website - are not in dispute.

There's citation here Schoolgirl's winning anti-Israel speech 'unanimously' voted out of competition final, but that includes the pupil's name - as of course does the video.

What's to be done? In a Facebook thread I'm trying to explain that your editing is not evidence of Wikipedia being staffed by Israel haters!

Should that link be <ref>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/158735/schoolgirls-winning-anti-israel-speech-unanimously-voted-out-competition-fina</ref>? Ah, I think I'm getting the hang of this now!

Silverdale (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care what they think on Facebook. If they want to accuse the son of a Rabbi of anti-Semitism then I reserve the right to laugh at them. Oh, and I am not "staff", any more than you are. We are all volunteers here, all trying to do the right thing. In this case, the right thing as I see it is not to risk ruining the life of a child over a stupid but not criminal act. Anyway...

The JC reference is a good start. It does count as reliable. I'm still not 100% convinced that the incident merits inclusion but if it is added back as a very short section, neutrally written, with the reference and without the name then I would not regard it as essential to remove it. I'd be prepared to wait and see what other people think of that. Remember that this is an article about the school so the coverage would need to focus on criticism of the school not the individual pupil. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can you please tell me why my edit for the Kelly Services page was reverted? Thank you! Latashamj (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation. If you keep on adding content copied from other websites you are going to get blocked. Please stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear DanielRigal Thank you for your communication on 19 June 2016 at 15.55. In response to Wikipedia’s comment ‘This article has multiple issues’ the Desmond Keegan page was improved by the addition of two paragraphs on ‘Academic career’ and ‘Publications’. The ‘Publications’ paragraph is now on the site, the ‘Academic career’ is not. Why? As your communication suggests ‘it refers only to facts and informations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media’. The ‘Academic career’ paragraph was modelled closely on the boxed ‘Academic career’ of Prof Dr Otto Peters, another leading figure in the important field of distance education and the foundation Vice Chancellor of the German Open University, the FernUniversität in Hagen. In his Routledge Studies in Distance Education Series Dr Keegan published a book on Dr Peters’ work. The improvement of the Desmond Keegan site has been almost nullified by the omission of the ‘Academic career’ paragraph. Please inform me what changes you require for this boxed paragraph to be published. Yours sincerely Dzzkyy (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Dzzkyy

First up, I'd advise you not to pay much attention to the Otto Peters article as that is not particularly good, in fact it seems to have a history of promotional editing. It is probably best to look at some better articles about more notable academics.

Now let me get to the core thing that will answer your main question. It is not enough that information in Wikipedia is true, people have to be able to check it is true. So we have our policy on verifiability. Essentially that means that everything in an article has to be referenced to reliable sources. I took the content out because it wasn't referenced.

So, you can certainly add some details of his academic career provided you can reference them. If you find it difficult to reference them them to reliable, independent sources that would be symptomatic of a bigger problem. Also, I'd recommend not to go overboard. If it starts to look like a CV/resume then it is going to get cut down again. We want to cover the notable academic achievements not every single thing. Also, try to write prose not lists. That avoids the appearance of a CV and helps to avoid accidental adding of too much stuff. If it doesn't work as prose then it is probably not needed.

--DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Dzzkyy (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Dzzkyy

3 July 2016

Dear Mr Rigal

Thank you for your communication.

Please read this 2016 analysis by Prof F Saba, the leading American expert on distance education:

The advent of correspondence education in the 1960s ushered in the era of distance education; however systematic study of distance education as a distinct discipline is of more recent vintage. Even though theorists from Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden and the United States have been contributing to its conceptual development over the past 50 years, it was not until 1980 that its first formal academic journal surfaced. That was the year that Desmond Keegan, a pioneering scholar and practitioner in the field, founded the publication of the journal Distance Education in Australia. Keegan (1996) characterised distance education as a distinct and separate area of practice and study from mainstream traditional education.

If you wish to check the accuracy of this citation the reference is: Saba, F (2016) Theories of Distance Education: Why they Matter, New Directions for Higher Education, Vol 2016, Issue 173, p21.

I was deeply shocked and saddened by your comments on the edit summary. The facts are that I was faced with a Wikipedia page, to which I had to respond, that was plastered with criticisms by Wikipedia editors like ‘This page has multiple issues’, ’This page is an orphan’ etc, etc. After studying dozens of Wikipedia ‘help pages’ from the list recommended by you, I tried as honourably and as scientifically as I could to respond to these criticisms. I totally reject your nasty comment ‘so incorrect that it is hard to construe it as not being intended to mislead’ – there is no value to me in trying to mislead anyone, nor did I ever have the slightest intention to do so.

I totally reject your statement ‘The article remains an orphan’. 30 references were provided. 4 of these (Nos 2, 15, 22 and 27) were to existing Wikipedia articles (https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki) and thus lock the contribution into Wikipedia, the remaining 26 are references to major published works, which lock it into the existing literature of distance education. It is certainly not an orphan.

The contribution was extremely careful to avoid conflict of interest and therefore all names were eliminated, except for obligatory references to Dr Keegan’s main collaborators (Professor Tait from the OU, Professor Peters from the German OU and Dr Mitchell from the University of South Australia) who are complimented for their contributions to the field of distance education.

Yours sincerely

Dzzkyy (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Dzzkyy

You seem not to understand what "orphan" means. It means that no articles link to the article in question, not that it has no references (We have the "unreferenced" tag for that situation.) I hope at least that clears that up. If you genuinely misunderstood this then I will try to consider that it was not your intention to mislead however your overall pattern of behaviour does not make this easy.

You also seem to be completely misunderstanding Conflict of Interest despite me linking to the policy on your talk page. Please reread that. I detect that you are somehow connected to, or invested in, the promotion of Desmond Keegan. If so, you need to back off.

Also, please note that references need to be to reliable sources. That does not include Wikipedia itself because we don't want loops of unreferenced claims all purporting to support each-other. Wikipedia articles can not be referenced to other Wikipedia articles.

Finally please read the WP:NPOV guidelines until you understand and why your use of "who are complimented for their contributions" is so clearly indicative of a serious neutrality problem.

--DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't quite bring myself to A11 this, because though 100 - 1 the article author is the ideology's inventor, there is nothing that "plainly indicates" that. So I have PRODded it, and explained WP:NOR to the author, and hope he accepts that. If he de-PRODs, I will AfD, unless anyone else gets there first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fair enough. My logic was that, as this seems to be something that only exists in its own inventor's head, that makes the inventor the only possible candidate for being the author. I'm still pretty sure that I'm right about this but I can see that my inference isn't the same thing as a plain indication that this is the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And how good is for WP to delete a section supported by 22 books? Also - on Google Books there are at least 20-30 more books stating the same thing. People who are interested in this topic will discover this - as this guy MMFA did - what then? --95.129.41.112 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the backstory here but you admit that it was removed a while ago and I presume there was a good reason. Lets see if anybody else thinks this content is valid. Consensus is what we need. If other editors (real editors that is) support it then I'd be happy to see it brought back. OTOH, if this is bad content being brought back by a sockpuppet of a blocked user then that is not going to end well. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It was rightfully removed, considering it was rather poorly written and sourced. That being said, it is true that the term Bulgar and Hun become synonymous beginning in about 480 AD. The Kutrigur and Utigurs are first called Huns, later called Bulgars and do appear to be descended from Attila's state (with the Akatir Huns i.e. Acatziri and the Onoghur Huns, one of the incoming groups Priscus records, forming the lesser portions of both halves of the dualist system.) However, this is easily tainted by East European nationalism. A lot of Bulgarian "Historians" use works like Movses Khorenat'si and others and misinterpret their works. Some guy posted on my page a link to an article where he claims that because the Huns were called Massagetae, a classicizing term referring back to the time of Herodotus, that they were descended from the Yue-Zhi (which is wrong, recent research shows the Yue-Zhi probably were the Alans). A section on the Hunnic state after Attila needs to be written. It just needs to be done right and it would best be done by a professional. I know that history, but I don't have the source material on hand to write it (It's mostly in German or Russian which I can't read and I'm not a professional either... although I could hit most professionals over the head with what I know...) MMFA (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,Can you please try to edit my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yazda ? It has been denied 4 times and I'm out of ideas how to make it work. Please feel free to add, delete or do anything necessary to make be accepted Khalaf Smoqi (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Audie Lorenzo, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 00:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh? No I didn't. I was tagging it for deletion in that edit. The author then blanked it (removing the deletion tag) and then you tagged it for deletion after that so I think one of the tools must have plonked the warning on the wrong talk page, which is odd. Anyway, it is blank and tagged for deletion now so all should be good. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How is this article a hoax? In doing a google search, it seems pretty notable to me... (although all of the sources that I found do not comply with WP:Verifiability). 73.96.114.219 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see why now, LOL. 73.96.114.219 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal - I represent Pragma Systems who publishes "Pragma SSH ClientSuite" SSH client package. We were creating wiki entry for it and add to "ssh client comparision" table that is in wikipedia also. We are a legitimate good SSH vendor and this product is used by many for Windows SSH needs. Please suggest how we can be added to the ssh compare table lists and how our entry "Pragma SSH ClientSuite" can be made to pass all wiki entry requirements. Thanks. Quamrul Mina, Co-founder, Pragma Systems, Inc. Quamrulmina (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

On Cisco and other relationship aspects. Pragma SSH ClientSuite is the only Cisco tested and certified RFC 6187 software in the market for SSH access to Cisco devices. Over 4 years partnership of Pragma with Cisco this software was developed. Cisco developed the RFC 6187 compliant SSH on the server side and Pragma developed the client side. US Govt IRS just bought on Sept 29, 2016, a large licence ( 350 seats ) of Pragma SSH ClientSuite to manage their Cisco SSH networks. US DoD, US Army, Canadian Airforce are also big users of Pragma SSH ClientSuite. Oracle Cloud, McKesson, HSBC bank, Hilton hotels and many other companies are large users of Pragma's SSH offerings ( Pragma SSH ClientSuite and Pragma Fortress SSH Server ). US Govt OMB mandates RFC 6187 based 2-factor Govt PIV smart-card based authentication in place of password/SSH public key. Pragma SSH ClientSuite fills the need and that is why Cisco certified us and is promoting our client for use in Cisco networks that need RFC 6187 smart card support. Our Cisco-Pragma white paper on 2factor ssh can be found at: http://www.pragmasys.com/products/support/cisco-2-factor

Oracle has OEM licensed Pragma SSH clients and servers for use in Oracle cloud. HSBC bank uses our SSH clients and servers in over 1000 seats and plans to double it in another year. McKesson ( Fortune #6) embeds Pragma SSH servers and clients in all their Imaging stations for a decade. All these we are talking about paid customers. Thanks again. Quamrul Mina. Co-founder, Pragma Systems, Inc. Quamrulmina (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is objecting to your product or your company. The objection is that it should not be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a business or software directory. Most companies and software are not eligible for inclusion. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. Nothing you have said seems directly relevant to the inclusion of these articles but you are welcome to have your say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragma SSH ClientSuite --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DanielRigal,

I wanted to ask a question regarding the biography of a living person template that you added to the article about Lily Mae. It states that the article "needs additional citations for verification." There are already 8 References in the article coming from 6 different independent press sources. How many additional citations should there be? I did notice that just about every paragraph in the article has at least one citation.

There are other press stories that could be referenced, but they weren't included by the original author. For instance there are two reviews from the UK Folk music blog "For Folks Sake"

http://www.forfolkssake.com/new-bands-panel/20479/new-bands-panel-lily-mae-early-days-ep

http://www.forfolkssake.com/song-of-the-day/25877/268-lily-mae-winter-lullaby

Since these reviews are not mentioned in the article should we add them as External Links rather than References? These are contemporaneous with Reference #1 from Folk Radio UK. They are two different publications, but they came out in the same time frame. I 'm guessing the author found both, but felt they were similar, so only included one. Or maybe they didn't find the For Folks Sake articles.

Any help would be appreciated as I have very little experience editing Wikipedia articles.

Thank you!

Bbm (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DanielRigal. You have new messages at DanielRigal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This user is abusing his rights and changing the contents of pages just because he disagrees with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.135.106 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are requesting me to ban myself? Have you thought this through? I mean, have you thought about this at all?

Anyway, I am not an administrator so I couldn't ban myself even if I wanted to.

So, basically, your request fails on so many levels that it is almost epic.

It is up to you whether you want to continue to make a fool of yourself. If you want to complain properly through the official channels then you can but, given your behaviour of hoaxing and vandalising articles, you should expect to be blocked if you draw any further attention to yourself. Don't say I didn't warn you. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DanielRigal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there really a hippo character in peppa pig or did someone add false information? --Pachisu124 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. That is why we need references for verification. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the misclick there. Was intending to view a diff, not rollback. Sorry about that. Regards, GAB^gab 04:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)