User talk:DannyRogers800

Welcome!

Hello, DannyRogers800!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, paul2520 💬 18:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Paul, I appreciate it! DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hi DannyRogers800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you very much for the clarification Alexeyevitch. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I am yet to fully familiarise myself with the rules, so thank you for guiding me. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing issues at Henry Clay Work

Hey, I've noticed you've expanded Henry Clay Work a lot which is great, however please note that no editor gets to decide how an article appears (see WP:OWN). You've been reverting two editors and forcing your own style which includes errors. This type of behavior can quickly escalate into a block so I would advise to slow down and be more cautious with your actions. Additionally, I've noticed you completely replaced the existing citation style on the page. See WP:CITEVAR. Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gonnym! Yes, I take the blame for being stubborn and neglecting the editors' changes... I won't touch them again. On your second point, I'm not quite convinced, as the previous article versions lacked one fixed citation style—it hardly had any citations at all. As per the regulations, I don't think consensus is required for my alterations as I did not necessarily change the citation style, rather, I settled on one. If you don't agree, kindly respond so that we can discuss the issue on the article's talk page and let other users decide. Thank you for interacting! DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version before you started editing (here) had six standard (non Harvard) citations. Some were used with citation templates others were manually written in the same style. Notice non used the short style (Harvard). Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but is there necessarily any opposition to this article adopting the Harvard style? The previous versions, which were roughly the same from 2018 onward, had no one chief editor, nor any noteworthy detail; they even lacked a bibliography. The Consenus guidelines state that: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted," so is there any need to consult anyone before this issue is resolved, and is there even really an issue? If this was a more significant article with an established style and prose and, let's face it, far more work put into it, I would not have adjusted the citation style, but seeing how paltry and inadequate the previous versions were, I don't think this should really be an issue. Nonetheless, I stand to be corrected. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at a lot of previous discussions (not on that article) you'll notice there is large opposition to changes one style to another. I personally find Harvard awful in digital. We don't use paper, why make it harder for readers to understand the reference? Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but there is no opposition to this article; if anyone disagrees with the change, they can freely voice their concerns themselves. Besides, many editors have changed citation style without any hassle, such as in Battle of Malvern Hill (which appears on the home page today). On another note, Harvard style being "awful" is not a unanimous view—many featured articles adopt that style, and it is also my preferred method of citation due to its compactness and elegance. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a preference, which is why WP:CITEVAR exists, so an editor does not change an article to their style. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refer you to the clause stating that consensus is presumed in the absence of apparent opposition. Once other users start disapproving, I will take great pains to revert all citations to the non-Harvard style you find preferable, but for the time being, I see no reason to. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Hi Danny,

Luke Elaine Burke has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. ^†

I hope you are doing well. Your user page was very positive and I just wanted to wish you the best. Luke Elaine Burke (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is super late, but thank you nonetheless! And thank you as well for spreading positivity. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marching Through Georgia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marching Through Georgia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marching Through Georgia

The article Marching Through Georgia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marching Through Georgia for comments about the article, and Talk:Marching Through Georgia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I often make many changes at one go while editing that page since I am trying to bring it to GA status. So, understandably, I cannot mention absolutely everything in the edit summary. But I will do my best. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you just said "made changes" it would be better than a partial summary which leads people to believe that only those changes have been made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll make sure to include "among other changes" whenever necessary. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign page

I just want to say I was the editor that wrote the vast majority of the page's content. I've been watching your edits to the page and I just want to say I'm very impressed and thankful for your work there. It needed a lot of cleaning up and I think you've done a great job with that! BootsED (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the notification, which naturally displayed only the first words of your message, I braced myself for an angry, petulant rant. But, no, it was a surprisingly nice comment! The article was a bit of a mess, I'll admit, but what can we expect for an article about current affairs? I was more than happy to clean up this article. And such comments like the one you've sent motivate me further. Thank you! DannyRogers800 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collins

If you have reliable sources that describe Senator Collins as "pro abortion", please offer them on the talk page. The term "pro choice" is typically used because believing that women should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies does not necessarily mean they themselves would get an abortion or support abortion itself. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that, but Wikipedia doesn't. Here, to describe a person's views on abortion, one either uses "pro-choice" or "anti-abortion"—not "pro-choice" or "pro-life," or "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." For consistency's sake, either "anti-abortion" must be replaced with "pro-life," or "pro-choice" replaced with "pro-abortion." I'll leave Collins as "pro-choice." But, in this case, politicians described as "anti-abortion" should become "pro-life." I hope this isn't confusing.

Also, I'm well aware that I'm editing controversial articles; I've been doing so for several months. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notifications are standard for those who edit in formally designated contentious topic areas, so that you are aware that rules in those areas are stricter and enforced more strictly. You may remove the notifications if you wish.

If you want to establish a consensus to use particular terminology to describe each side of the abortion issue, please do so at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for informing me. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Please see also my note at User talk:Hipal. Bishonen | tålk 03:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, DannyRogers800. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Jonathan Swan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 03:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hello @Bishonen, I do not have a conflict of interest on the Jonathan Swan article. I proposed removing the COI banner on the talk page as it was no longer relevant, and then some other user accused me of having a COI without any evidence. I have absolutely no relation with the subject, besides my appreciating his journalism. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Unfortunately it's rather too obvious in your version of the article that you appreciate his journalism a lot; it's a very complimentary piece. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral in tone and fact; please see WP:NPOV. Bishonen | tålk 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I have nominated this article for GA. If there are any glaring issues, they can be fixed there. As I have remarked in my other reply, I tried hard to maintain NPOV (except for the first sentence, which, admittedly, was a bit much), but I'm not the most experienced editor on Wikipedia. I'll make mistakes, and if they can be fixed by means of discussion, as in here, that would be great. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your version says "rebuked by commentators for taking a blissful, easygoing approach." which is not in the source. I've fully protected the article. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in any way recompensed for any of your editing? Doug Weller talk 07:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid editor. Any issue regarding NPOV stems from my failure as an editor, not my being hired by a company. The only connection that I have to the subject is that I appreciate his work, and that seemed to have manifested itself in the article. There is such thing as failing at one's job; not all bad editors are cheaters. I do not mean, and have never meant, any malice against this site. DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Glaring issues" should be fixed before an article goes to a GA nomination. It's expecting a lot of work from your fellow editors, and not enough work from yourself, that others should take care of serious NPOV issues through GA discussion.

Please don't edit war any more after the full protection expires, and don't make any more attacks on Hipal or anybody else for opposing you ("Scarcely have I seen anything as petty and unnecessary in my twelve months on Wikipedia", and an accusation of "a vendetta or some other descent into personal attacks"). It's hardly either petty or unnecessary to revert a promotional and (as you admit yourself here, if I understand you) non-NPOV version of the article, and it's not a sign of a vendetta. Any further edit warring and/or attacks and I will consider blocking you from the article. Also, if you remove the COI template from the talkpage one more time, you may be blocked from that as well. Bishonen | tålk 08:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It was late into the night in my time zone when this discussion was going on, which is why I could not do a lot of work. I have no reason to attack or wage wars against editors, like yourself, who constructively explain what is wrong with the article and recommend improvements. I have no issue with that. I am still willing to work on the article, even if it's a long way from GA (I should mention that it was nominated before this discussion, i.e., before I was explicitly made aware of NPOV issue), but it must established that I have not been paid to edit. I tried to improve an article, and I failed, but that is no sign of me cheating or violating policy. It just means that I'm an inexperienced editor. DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that you didn't know about WP:NPOV until it was pointed out, which is a little surprising; it's one of our core content policies, and you're not that new. Anyway, you seem to highly resent being asked about COI. From my own point of view, what happened was I asked you about it; you replied that you had "absolutely no relation with the subject"; and I thanked you for that unambiguous reply. So, at least when you speak to me, there's no need to keep on about how "it must established that I have not been paid to edit". AFAIC, it has been established, by the aforementioned dialogue. I don't feel any doubt, and have surely not expressed any doubt, about your denial of COI. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I knew about NPOV, I just didn't know that the article had a problem with NPOV before being called out for it. Was I naive? Yes. Was I malicious? I hope not.

And, yes, I'll admit that I feel upset being asked about COI. It has nothing to do with who is asking, that's not the point; I just don't feel comfortable when my four days' worth of work is accused of being a paid job. It's quite a sensitive subject for me. So I apologize if I got a bit sentimental during this discussion, but I do not mean any harm. Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...accused of being a paid job I don't believe anyone has done so. Can you point out any accusations? --Hipal (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to point fingers, that is not the scope of this discussion.

But, for one, all my edits were reverted, and the reason provided, besides that the version exactly before mine was the "last good one," was, "it makes me wonder if you have a WP:COI yourself." That sounds like an accusation. I could be wrong, but there must have been a reason for all my edits being reverted. No discussion, nothing. At once, they were all removed. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for contributing to your conclusion there. I thought it would be a low-key introduction to the topic of COI.

As far as the revert, WP:BLP states, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If you want to continue editing the article, I can provide plenty of detail, which should be done on the article talk page. Generally, I strongly recommend that editors do not work on articles under editing restrictions until they are very well-versed with Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. Swan's article falls under at least two topic areas with editing restrictions. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is different. My inexperience is a whole new matter, although I should point out that I have contributed to articles on contentious topics in the past (most notably, on Trump's 2024 campaign), and have not met any major obstacles. If it is not recommended that relatively new editors take on controversial articles, then that is fine, and I will leave the Jonathan Swan article alone for the time being.

Regarding the quote from WP:BLP, ("that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed") the sourcing of the article was not really the issue; the tone was. Therefore, as per WP:BLP, I still don't think the content can be justifiably removed. However, it is very possible that there is some other clause that I'm unaware of.

I don't want to drag this issue much farther. I'm not that interested in improving the article anymore, and I won't contest the recent reverts if the issue grows more heated. If it is deemed fit that a temporary ban from editing controversial articles should be imposed on me, I won't contest that either. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just, or mainly, the tone. Reviewing your edits, I saw misleading edit summaries, large edits that were hard to review, what look like WP:NOT problems throughout, basic WP:MOS problems, and what look like sourcing problems (WP:NOT/WP:POV).

The GA process is not a good way to learn Wikipedia. It relies far too much on local consensus, which can result in overlooking WP:CONLOCAL problems. It's easily gamed.

I'm sorry that you received such a different experience with your work on Swan's article. You clearly spent a great deal of time on it. I hope to be able to review it all and restore or at least build upon what you've done. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I have withdrawn the article from GA candidacy, and, until I have amassed more experience on Wikipedia, will not edit it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using an AI to edit?

I'm guessing that you are using an AI for editing. I'm unfamiliar with current consensus on doing so. WP:AI is where to begin looking into the details, and I expect it will evolve into some guidelines and policies.

I've been using AI's as well, and find it frustratingly difficult. The language from AI's tend to be problematic unless controlled. Avoiding content policy violations is difficult. I'm mostly using AI's to wordsmith for tone and brevity. I'm find them somewhat useful for doing initial research on a topic.

Take care with them. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not use AI for editing, never have, and will not consider it. I find it takes away the effort that goes into crafting an article. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jonathan Swan in his 2020 interview with Donald Trump.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jonathan Swan in his 2020 interview with Donald Trump.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back!

Your humor and work are needed here. Bearian (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Bearian! I have largely returned to editing as usual, so all should be fine now. DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues in Jonathan Swan

Moved to ‹The template Format linkr is being considered for merging.› WP:NPOVN § NPOV issues in Jonathan Swan

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have moved your request to the Neutral Point of View noticeboard, which will be better suited towards answering your question. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That should do the trick. Thank you, @Primefac! DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User page looking like encyclopedia article

Hi there. I notice that your user page is looking pretty identical to encyclopedia article. if u can, pls put the {{User page}} template above all your texts on your user page. This may help so any users who views your user page will know that your user page isn't looking like encyclopedia article. Thank you. Malayeditz (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the suggestion! DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]