User talk:Daehan

Don't you dare removing one single gallery at the English Wikipedia as you did before! Hafspajen (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daehan:, Thank you for your help on Pierre Lepautre (1652–1716), just a note on your remark about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout / guidelines/ bottom of the page ... It has created quite a momentum , on various articles from the part of a very original profile, could you please have a look at one single article fr:Gaëtane Prouvost and either add a proper link to section other articles or restore the singular.... or do something . ( J'en ai marrre de ces manières françaises de redresseur(s) de tords!) , " cordially", --DDupard (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DDupard:,

Sorry, but I'm not sure about what you need me to do in this article: the Correcteur21's edits are correct and follow the same principles I am (see he's edit comment). These are different from English Wikipedia and reflect the way it is meant to be done in the French one, so there is some homogeneity, even if there are some exceptions.

If your comment here was an ironical one, please don't bother: I won't. Of course, if your point is to say how ridiculous is this, I quite understand. But you already fulilled them before to write this, so...

--Daehan (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:Quotations for the reason for (:s) in the Julio Rey Pastor article. Two quotations from an encyclopedia of history and philosophy of mathematics are quoted there, and the method of block-indenting is used to set apart the quotations. You may also note that that article still contains much copied material from an article cited on its Talk page. My efforts have been to replace those misuses of quotation with other sources. Paraphrasing may also be used to bring that article into line with policy. Thank you for your attention. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daehan:, your participation would be welcome on this talk page: Talk:Académie Julian, Thank you--DDupard (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Morcheeba, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The lead section conflicts with the body of the article. The body needs to change along with the lead to fix that. Citation to reliable sources should be included. Please don't remove that tag again until the problem is resolved. The citation needed tag in the info box also should not be removed until the information is included in the article body or a citation is added to the info box. Gab4gab (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gab4gab, I did provide a reliable source, and if just had tooked some time to search for the information, you would have found the information everywhere. No need to be abusive with the tags, here. Regards, --Daehan (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Daehan. You have again removed tags that indicate problems in the article without solving the problems. The lead says in the first sentence that Morcheeba is a band consisting of three members. Later in the same section it says Paul left the band in 2014 and the band ceased to exist. That is a conflict within the lead section itself. In addition the lead is to summarize the body. However the lead now says the band continues (and also that it does not continue) while the body again says the band has ended. Why you think it is helpful to remove the tags is a puzzle to me. Of course any time content is challenged it is appropriate to provide citations to resolve the challenge. You say you provided a reliable source but you had added no citations to the article. Gab4gab (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gab4gab,

I "provided" the sources in my modification's comment. Just to show that there are sources telling they're back, even in French. I feel it is not necessary to give sources to this information as I think it can easily be verified on the net. I mean, even if Facebook is not a quality source, the group itself says they're back - "Morcheeba are back" as they say themselves. Even considering they're not the same crew as at their beginning - as it happens in many bands, including the greatest ones - they say they're back as "Morcheeba". This is a primary source, which in this case is enough, and if it is not, please search on the web. Sometimes, it isn't that complicated ;)

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daehan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daehan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daehan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. Re Hofämterspiel: see my comments on the talk page. There is no evidence of a game called Hofämter. Spiel just means pack of cards and they could have been used e.g. for Karnöffel. Bermicourt (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daehan
IOSR journals (they publish multiple titles) is on the original Beall's list [1] which largely started the awareness of the predatory publishing problem.
It has long been considered a predatory publisher on WP - I first became aware of it when I had my knuckles rapped by an admin for adding it as a reference to an article.
This is a list of current uses of IOSR journals on en.wikipedia - 57 uses including:- 53 spam link reports, 2 AFD discussions, one Help desk and one copyright discussion - no articles at all.
Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arjayay,

Thank you for the detailed information: I'll try to keep aware of this problem :) --Daehan (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently tagged a number of files for deletion, such as File:Foy-Breguet telegraph display.jpg, that contained a {{keep local}} template. Please stop disrespecting this request. SpinningSpark 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (you too) @Spinningspark,

I just rightfully used the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" feature. These files are candidates for exportation to Wikimedia Commons because their copyright have expired.

The {{Now Commons}} template is added automatically: maybe the procedure needs to be reviewed.

"Please stop disrespecting" FAITH... Daehan (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an ussue with exporting to Commons, but you are responsible for the results of any tool you use. It may be that the procedure is defective, but if you use it, you should yourself put right any mistake it makes. {{Now Commons}} is an inappropriate template to use on files marked with {{Keep local}}. If it is automatically added, you should remove it afterwards. It is unneceaasry to have this template because the Keep local template already detects the move to Commons and appropriately points to it. Further, the Now Commons template put the file in a category for deletion. SpinningSpark 13:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinningspark,

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to keep the files in local? Once they are in Commons, what interest is there in keeping them on wp:en?

Thank you, Daehan (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Spinningspark/Why I don't upload to Commons SpinningSpark 18:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of reverting the edits on the Sívori Museum. I've been editing that page and trying to improve the article, and I just added a (IMO) better picture than the previous version (which was NOT the "official" portrait but a much worse cut). You may consider the other painting is better, in fact, I noticed you reverted my edit on the French wiki and since then you have been trying to remove that picture from all the projects.

If you persist with this behaviour, I'll have to report your edits so I rather prefer to have a polite conversation and try to solve this in good terms. Could you please cease with such reverts? Fma12 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12, there is no need to raise menaces, as there is no fundament for it: this is an editorial matter that I have justified.

This is not important: do whatever you think is good. But the caption is not correct: "here portrayed by himself". No, he did not potrayed himself like that, so you're giving a false information. Please adjust the caption. Daehan (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not giving a false information because it was Sìvori who painted the portrait. I just retouched it, altering its brightness and contrast tones with Photoshop. Moreover, how do you know "he did not potrayed himself like that?" most of paintings deteriorate with time, and this portrait is more than 100 years old. See per example the Mona Lisa painting used in its article. The image is a retouched version of the original painting (which is much more darker). Moreover, caption says "The Mona Lisa digitally retouched to reduce the effects of aging".

The Sivori selfportrait is a similar case so the original painting is very dark which causes some details can't be appreciated, that's the reason why I uploaded a different version. I'm going to add a similar caption to Mona Lisa's article and that's it. Fma12 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're just imagining what the portrait would be, not based on experts' opinion or study but your photoshop skills... (see Wikipedia:No original research)

"I'm going to [do whatever I want] and that's it"...

This is a terrific work, congratulations. Daehan (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave a detailed explanation to you, even citing examples, but you persist on your misconduct and avoiding any kind of consensus. This is not how things work here on WP. "You're just imagining what the portrait would be, not based on experts' opinion or study but your photoshop skills": It's just a derivative work, I'm not an art expert (neither are you) so what is your problem with altering, enhancing, retouching or modifying an image and uploading a version of it?

You're more than annoying, congratulations to you too. Fma12 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello dear administrators,

I'm willing to export this file to Commons.

The author is unknown: in Europe the document is in the public domain 70 years after publication. In the USA, it's 95 years. Given the age of the person (Eric Robertson, 1887-1941) in the photo (we can reasonably date it around the First World War or up to 1925 as most), we can suppose it was taken more than 95 years ago and was propably published shortly after it was taken. Thus I think the licence is incorrect and this file could be imported it on Commons with PD-UK-unknown and PD-US-expired.

I tried to export it, but I get a message stating that I am unable to import the file because at least one of its file revisions is hidden (it is indeed the case). So can any administrator do something about it?

Thank you very much, --Daehan (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that everything you say is true, so I have unhidden the relevant revision. JBW (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]