Hi Daniel Case, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
This following message was posted on my talkpage, I think it's more of addressed to you rather than me :
Hi Daniel, just following up with the speedy delete request. This page, in my opinion, is of great historical value to the residents of the upper valley region of New Hampshire and should not be subject to deletion. If there is any content in my post that you feel is inappropriate, I would invite you to please let me know, thanks.
Carl Levine of 69.173.102.115
If you have questions regarding this mesage, please feel free to leave a note on my talkpage.
- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great job on the article revisions! I am a midwesterner, but last summer we were visiting my brother in New Windsor, New York. I am interested in military and aviation history, and as I drove past Stewart, I saw a couple of small business jets and I thought, this looks like a former military field. Then we went around the corner and Holy Crap! a C-5 Galaxy!!, and then I saw a couple of more C-5's! So when I got home I tried to learn more about the airfield and wrote some of the earlier revisions, but your article really tells the whole story. Thanks again --Rogerd 05:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 20 July 20053 comments1 person in discussion
I don't mind you replacing my image of a typical blaze with your own, but... my whole point in adding an image of an actual blaze was to illustrate how very different from the idealized image of a blaze were the actual blazes that a hiker was likely to see. Yours, on the other hand, looks almost exactly like the idealized image, and unlike almost any blaze I've seen in real life in forty years of hiking. You can keep it that way if you want to, but then I'm not sure what value the photo has. -- Mwanner 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I was going to let you know I'd replaced the image, but you saw already.
My main problem with your image was that it was decentered. The blaze, which should have been the subject of said image, was practically up against the edge. It was hard to determine what it was about.
That blaze is quite real, I assure you. Granted, I looked for one that would illustrate the concept. And maybe, given the color-correcting I did on it as well as that I used a flash, it does look good. But the other image simply didn't, IMO, work for the article. We needed an image that didn't need explaining.
BTW, I am looking for some images to illustrate the other kinds of blazes I described. If you have some good ones, feel free to put them up.Daniel Case05:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
No problem, I'll get a turn signal as soon as there's some halfway decent weather for hiking. But my idea of the right kind of picture would be one that illustrates the reality, not the concept-- it would be a typical blaze: messy, only roughly rectangular, possibly hard to see; like the ones you see every day. -- Mwanner 12:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I understand, but for articles here my feeling is that you need to illustrate the concept, not the reality, unless there's good reason to do so. Of course, maybe we could fit your image in to show that sometimes blazes aren't so easy to spot, making sort of a diptych with mine.
Probably a good idea to replace that diagram with maybe some actual blazes ... not all of them are actually used (I have never seen that spur sign, though it's probably not a bad idea to use it). I'm not sure about that diagram's copyright status in any event; it might be a good candidate for deletion and the file gives no source.
OK, I added a turn signal blaze, and I readded my original photo, cropped to emphasize the blaze more and captioned to indicate that it's an example of a "rectangular" blaze that ain't.
As for the six blazes diagram, I wouldn't be too quick to replace it. For one thing, that spur trail that we've never seen might be used out west or somewhere we haven't hiked. Meanwhile, I'm going to add something to its caption about turn signals not always being stepped in the direction of the turn. See the AT talk page for a cranky comment on that issue by User:TJ aka Teej.
And as to the Trail Signage idea, I'm not sure I know what you mean-- those "Summit -> 6 miles" signs? I think you could sneak that into this article without renaming it. If you do decide to rename it, I'd suggest adding a #REDIRECT from the original title to the new title (and change the redirect that presently goes from Blazes to Trail Blazing to point to the new title).
And yes, I do live nearby-- I'm about a 15 minute hike from the Kitchen Stairs on the Suffern-BearMountain trail. But I'm sorry to say that when I go into the woods, it's generally to get away from people, rather than to be sociable. On the other hand, if Wikipedia ever holds a meetup in the area (you'd think this would be an obvious place for one), I might see you there.
Happy hiking. -- Mwanner 00:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course I'll redirect it. But I think it should be "trail blazing and signage" because those two are really related. As I revised the article, I got to realizing that from a semiotic perspective there's more going on than you realize (which is of course the idea). There are similar issues with signage (how much? What do you sign?) that are worth a discussion.Daniel Case21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wallkill River, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Coya Knutson, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I figure i let you know that you might want to keep an eye on that category, i tried to do the same with bridges of the Delaware River only to have it placed on WP:CFD and deleted without anyone notifing me, as the creator, of it's pending deletion. I used not to put categorues on my watchlist, because of the limited amount of edits to them, but i leard me lesson, just figure i give you a heads up, so you don't get bit either. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ03:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 November 20053 comments2 people in discussion
Checking the page's history it's evident that your statement that your "first attempt to put this up there was removed" is false. More likely there was a problem with the cache that meant you did not see the result of your edit immediately. Perhaps, in future, you should actually make sure that your accusations are correct before you make them?
Yes, you're right. That's exactly what happened. I will remove that from the VfD page.
I suggest you address the article on its own merits or lack thereof rather than attack editors and impugn their motives. My motivation for adding the article is that I read on a discussion board that she was running for the NDP nomination in Toronto Danforth (an important nomination as the riding is currently held by the NDP). Therefore, this makes her notable, at least for the moment (particularly as there are no other candidates for the nomination, at least none that I know of). No, I don't know Barbara Warner and I don't support her candidacy - again, in future stick to facts, not speculation. Homey04:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I still don't think that someone's seeking office makes her notable. There has to be something else.
I agree she's borderline. I think the significant factor is that she is a candidate for the nomination a riding her party currently holds and that she's run before but I'm not going to go to the wall over it.Homey15:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Catskill Escarpment
Latest comment: 20 November 20052 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Daniel. Yes, you're right, I went overboard in un-capping it in the first instance, where it is used in the phrase "Catskill Escarpment" (and I have now changed it back). But I think that in subsequent uses (without "Catskill") it should be lower case, just as one writes, e.g., "Slide Mountain" and then "...the mountain is..." -- Mwanner | Talk20:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Thanks for the image that you added to the Benchmark (surveying) page, however, I noticed that this actually appears to show a triangulation station (horizontal control) and not a benchmark (vertical control). There is a section within this article that refers to triangulation stations, so the image is OK but the image name needs changed to something like 'Triangulation Station on USGS map.gif'. As images cannot be moved, I was wondering if you would upload the image again with a new name and add that to the article, I can then delete the current image. Thanks, JeremyA02:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome -- I actually stumbled across The Lovely Bones by Random page, and I was struck by how complete and thoughtful the article was. By all means, take it to Peer Review. You'll want to cite sources in a "references" section; that'll probably be the first thing they'll look for. They may also ask for a shorter plot summary section, and justification for anything that looks like original research or personal opinion, so review the text carefully for that. But I think this could absolutely make a featured article with a little work. Keep up the fine contributions to this, your Catskills articles, and the rest of Wikipedia! — Catherine\talk19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
newsmax
Latest comment: 3 December 20051 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 December 20051 comment1 person in discussion
I removed the deletion tag from Raven Riley. It just doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy delete. If you think it should be deleted, please put it through the AfD process, but honestly, I think it's encyclopedic. -- Dpark03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 December 20051 comment1 person in discussion
Hey I removed the tag from the article. I think you added it before the user added a link to the CNET article which gave it some verifiability. It doesn't seem to fall under any criteria for speedy deletion anymore. Might qualify for AfD if you want though. Mrtea05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 December 20051 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Daniel, I pulled the speedy tag from Roboticists and put it up for AfD instead. Sadly promo material doesn't meet CSD requirements--you can check them out specifically at WP:CSD. Nice job tagging this one, though! Keep up the good patrols! --Dvyost08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 December 20054 comments2 people in discussion
...is being posted for deletion, so I hope you'd like to put your input in. I want to congratulate you for your hard work on that article, and give you a barnstar:
Daniel,
Please understand that my nominations for deletion are not in any way personal. The issue is the reliability of the sources and the notability of the person. Anyone can add a website or add comments to a blog. Until it has serious media attention, notability is an issue. Clearly this article will be kept as enough buzz on this case has already been generated, even without media coverage. If anything, the article will be improved as it will gain more editing attention, and I appreciate your efforts in wikifying and improving this article. NoSeptembertalk23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
People reviewing an AfD usually view the article and can see at a glance that it has been wikified, they don't always think to check "What links here" and without incoming links, how can the typical encyclopedia user navigate to the article from somewhere else on wiki? NoSeptembertalk23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Robin Bush
Latest comment: 19 December 20059 comments2 people in discussion
And there's no way to verify the reliabilty of this book either. Just because an author has an opinion about something doesn't make it fact. BlueGoose03:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The issue at hand is whether "Bush on the Couch" is a reliable source or not. The burden of proof is on you to prove that is per Wikipedia guidelines or general common sense. BlueGoose03:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
See pages 221-238 of the book. I will incorporate all those into the reference section as well since they are primary sources.
Are you accusing me of vandalizing your user page? I thought this was an open, honest discussion, but your resort to ad hominem attacks show otherwise. BlueGoose03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I accuse you of nothing. I'm merely noting that it occurred for the first time today despite a year of engaging in some often contentious edits. Daniel Case03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
And you imply that was me. I went to your user page and I saw that NoahTheGreat was the one that vandalized your page. I don't know if this can be done, but have some admin or moderator compare IP addresses on these two accounts if you really think we're one in the same. I'll attest that this is the only account that I've been on in any computer at my home. My debates are purely intellectual and I have no reason to be upset (nor am I upset right now) over disagreements. In fact, I think it's fun to discuss through honest issues. BlueGoose03:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hey I'm brand new on here and I was reading the Lovely Bones article you wrote and wondered if you could help me out with how to do things on here?
Well, you need to let me know where to help you out. Sign your post with four tildes if you have a user account ... I know of no other way to get in touch with you.
You're probably aware of this, maybe even related, but just in case you're not, I stumbled across this site, and thought I should pass it on [1]. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
That was fast! Didn't realize there was a cat for "defunct" magazines. I've added another wargaming magazine title to that category as well. Thanks! And for catching the cat/sub-cat thing too, wasn't sure.
Amazing the things you learn when you do newarticle patrol. There also really ought to be a "Defunct gaming magazines" subcat, too. Daniel Case07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sago Mine
Latest comment: 4 January 20065 comments4 people in discussion
Thanks for the cleanup, I'm typing on the fly here so it is appreciated. Question, however. I am leery about calling it a "disaster" as of yet. It probably will be an appropriate title shortly, but I wonder if calling it a disaster at this time is a little premature, in that they may all be saved? Maybe just a matter of semantics, but what do you think? Tokyojoe200204:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I butted into this issue because I saw that it had been copied and pasted from one title to another. This should never be done as we need to keep the edit history in one location. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:35, Jan. 4, 2006
I kinda figured that. If the move button won't let you move it, it's because there's something sitting in the way already. Cases like that require an admin to delete the obstruction first, so the page can be properly moved. I've moved it to a previously unforseen title, 2005 Sago Mine incident which is neutral, and specific in case somebody makes the same mistake twice. We'll see how long it lasts — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:50, Jan. 4, 2006
Stop it! You are leaving double and triple redirects behind and leaving talk pages stranded in the wilderness. Just go to the talk page and discuss it for a bit like everyone else. -Splashtalk17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
SEKOLAH MENENGAH KEBANGSAAN TEKNIK BUKIT PIATU
Latest comment: 8 January 20062 comments1 person in discussion
Google the filmmaker Eric Norcross and there is some information about some of his projects which include but aren't limited to various fan-sites, famous.com and other actor websites. I see no reason why you flagged this article.
-Katherine Johnson
Snowshoes
Latest comment: 17 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 20 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
I will take this into consideration and will probably shift the images around again after the article makes FA. Thanks for the advice and the vote of support. Andrew Levine06:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alex Bogomolov Jr
Latest comment: 22 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I added some info to the tennis player article, including his #1 USTA ranking in 2000, his defeat of Andy Roddick, and his defeat this week of Fernando Gonzalez, (Chile's #1 ranked player) at the 2006 Australian Open. 69.106.132.4302:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why move the glossary of rhetorical terms to list?
Latest comment: 24 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Daniel: I'm trying to understand why you found it necessary to move our glossary of rhetorical terms to a list of rhetorical terms. Before calling it "glossary," I checked several other wiki glossaries and thought our project fit into that category. To my understanding, a "list" is merely a list of words without definitions, whereas a glossary provides a brief definition for each term. Can you explain your rationale? Thanks. --Matt16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wiki Glossary/List
Latest comment: 24 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the eloquent and helpful response, Daniel. I understand what you're saying perfectly. When I was starting the glossary, I noticed that several of the pages dedicated to the terms were themselves only a sentence or two--a brief definition that could have been found in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. My plan is to gradually widen the scope of these limited articles. I have a class full of eager-beaver rhetoric grad students who would likely generate pages of text for each term once I let them loose.
One advantage of doing this as a glossary rather than a list (that I can think of, anyway), is having short definitions for all the rhetorical terms in one convenient window, rather than having to open up a bunch of windows. What are your thoughts on this?
Latest comment: 24 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks, Daniel. I put up my thoughts and rationale for the page here, though I'm not sure it's in the right place. I haven't had to do this before. --Matt17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks
Latest comment: 24 January 20062 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks again. As I said before, I haven't been in this situation before, and am making one mistake after another in dealing with it properly. --Matt17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks from me too for helping out over the page move and AfD. Would have been a shame if that project had been empeded by over-zealous AfD voting. Lukas(T.|@)19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
What a lovely article! Like you, I'm a budding "deletionist;" I troll the new articles page looking for articles that could be listed for deletion. How nice to find an article that was the exact opposite of those criteria. -Ikkyu203:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
New Main Page Election talks - your input is needed
Latest comment: 26 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 27 January 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for adding a few points, especially the one on vandalism - that type of behavior's usually enough to nudge even the Inclusionists towards typing Delete. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Action Park
Latest comment: 30 January 20062 comments1 person in discussion
Daniel, the Action Park article is great, one of the most intriguing things I've ever seen on wikipedia. Thanks for it. Did the park visitors know about the level of danger? Was it part of the attraction? --Lockley19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hey Daniel, thanks for the great response. Please do email me that Weird NJ article when you get a chance -- I'm at walt at placedoctor.com. --Lockley06:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Chip Coffey
Latest comment: 29 January 20062 comments1 person in discussion
I created a page about up-and-coming psychic/medium, Chip Coffey and you posted that it needed cleanup. I have edited the page and hope that it can remain on Wikipedia. If there is something more that it needs, can you please advise. Thanks.
Latest comment: 3 February 20061 comment1 person in discussion
To be honest, I uploaded that image several months ago and I do not remember the exact NFL films title I took it from. They have used it on several tapes and DVDs, so I will just name a title off the top of my head: Turf Talk: 100 Greatest Sound Bites. 1995. Zzyzx11(Talk)23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Schunemunk
Latest comment: 4 February 20061 comment1 person in discussion
I've added the section on Styranovski's death. I'll leave the infobox and the picture to you — I'm carless in NYC, so it's not terribly convenient for me. Must sleep now, as I'm dayhiking up the southern end of the Long Path tomorrow/today. Choess06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
The hi-res image I uploaded is from the intranet site, but I know for a fact it was widely used in advertising material and in the newspaper several years ago, for the company's 40th anniversary. I'm not sure if that changes anything though.
--Lc 0423:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it should go on the front page as well. I don't have time right now, but would be happy to help if you want to get the ball rolling. --Goodoldpolonius217:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 March 20062 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for helping to copyedit. Being a part of the team which has improved the article slowly, it is nice to get the article polished by fresh eyes -- I think I have enough World Cup for the next few years! Ha! — Ian MankaTalk to me‼05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 March 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Daniel:
Thanks for working on WP:NYSR, Route 416. I moved Highway 416 to Route 416 since that is the naming convention we are going with as per the NYSDOT names of state-numbered-roads.
--Censorwolf21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Route 17K
Latest comment: 3 March 20062 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 March 20062 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, thanks for your message re the above. It's nice to know my contribution was appreciated. I've been in a deadlock myself (see Talk:Saatchi_Gallery and third party contact seemed to do the trick. I think Wicki forces us to have to approach things slightly differently from how we would normally do things, and we're all learning about a unique collaboration. But at the end of the day I think those who are dedicated and of good-will will win through. And after all, the bottom line is to make a valid presentation of the subject.
PS There is somewhere you can put a notice to ask for outside assistance and also for formal outside moderation.
I guess I'm not as patient as you! There seems so much work to be done on articles, particularly art, which is what I concentrate on mostly. All's well that ends well, as they say.
Latest comment: 8 March 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for participating in Wikiproject New Jersey. In an attempt to create articles for some of the non-existing pages related to New Jersey, NJCOTW was recently created to bring members of WP:NJ together to work collaboratively on a certain selected topic, which this week is List of Governors of New Jersey. Please help by nominating/voting/commenting on articles on WP:NJCOTW, or by helping to improve articles in the scope of the topic for the NJCOTW. AndyZ00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
DYK
Latest comment: 9 March 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stony Clove Notch, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.