User talk:DannyRogers800

Happy New Year!

DannyRogers800,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 10:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 10:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I wish you a lovely year and pleasant times on Wikipedia. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

On 8 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Lion Sleeps Tonight, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the success of one version of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" was almost derailed by allegations of communism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Lion Sleeps Tonight. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Lion Sleeps Tonight), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Herostratus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Herostratus has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated The Long and Winding Road for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). George Ho (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that your FAC nomination, The Lion Sleeps Tonight, was archived as unsuccessful. I encourage you to bring the article to WP:PR, and review other articles there to help get feedback. I also suggest reviewing articles at WP:FAC: this helps editors learn the FA criteria, clears the backlog so that your article is more likely to get noticed, and builds goodwill amongst FAC reviewers so they are more likely to review your nominations. Feel free to ping me or post on WT:FAC if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this thoughtful message, Z1720. It doesn't bother me. School is keeping me very busy right now, so a gold star isn't going to shake me. And I may need some time to patch all the problems on "The Long and Winding Road", so please keep the review open for a bit. Thank you :) DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Godfrey Baldacchino c. 2020.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 10:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You make a good point. My friend should manage to take a picture of Baldacchino not too far from today. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here you deleted an important section about Internet access rights, guaranteed by the SCOTUS, which is one of the most important rights in modern times. Your description is - "Deleted section: Too section". Can you plz explain what does it even mean ?? You did not give any reasonable explanation to delete a section which was there for years..... ~2026-33365-13 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

All rights are important; there's no use in ranking them. That's one thing. Secondly, the article is too long, so some sections have to go. Internet access did not have a strong claim to remain, since the article mentioned just one court case on this particular right. If the article lists all rights that can reasonably qualify as "important", it becomes cumbersome and very much useless since readers expect a summary of the First Amendment, not a volume. Nevertheless, there is an argument to be made that internet rights can return, as long as information on some other right (or rights) is chopped off. That's my explanation. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That one case is a landmark case, regarding one of the most important rights of our time - Internet access right. The SCOTUS confirmed that the FA of Constitution protects this very important right, even for sex offenders. I think this case info should be there, with or without a distinct section. ~2026-33365-13 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may include the information on that case. Ideally, some work is done to trim some other sections... I won't commit to that myself... but the article is already very long anyway. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

"You may include the information on that case" - the article is protected........ ~2026-33517-90 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I restored the information. See whether you agree with my edit... speak if you find anything else that needs repairing. DannyRogers800 (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, "too section" was a typo. Sounds like something from a surrealist novel. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I noticed you created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Resources and, I was wondering if both volumes of The McCartney Legacy by Adrian Sinclair and Allan Kozinn could be added to the "McCartney" section in the secondary sources of books and chapters? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Newtatoryd. A brilliant choice... I'll add it tomorrow morning. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can add it if you'd prefer that or if that's possible, if so, should I add both parts or just the first part. Also, if I can, should I add Alan Clayson's books on John and Paul since you added George and RIngo's but not Paul and John's. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure it's possible; just see that the referencing style is consistent (so, include the location, and wikilink the author/s and title but not the publisher). Clayson's books are fine too. Thank you for these suggestions. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

And before I forget... Thank you for your work on the Wild Life tracks. zmbro, as you may know, has just won the album's article a green badge, so all in all these past few days have been splendid for the Beatles community on Wikipedia. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Beatles are my favorite band, so I'm always glad to add more Beatles articles. Also, are there any books you've been meaning to add? Because I can add them. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, I found out John Blaney and Tom Doyle have both written books on John Lennon separately and Ringo Starr respectively, can I add the books I found? Here’s Blaney’s book on Lennon, https://www.google.com/books/edition/John_Lennon/ZuCZR7MiDA0C?hl=en and here’s Doyle’s book on Ringo, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ringo/Qb-pEQAAQBAJ?hl=en Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. There are some sources used in the articles on "I've Just Seen A Face" and Starr that haven't yet found their way into the Resources tab. You can add those as well as Blaney's and Doyle's books. If I find some time while at work, I'll handle what I can. DannyRogers800 (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What category in the resources section of WikiProject The Beatles would you consider Allan Kozinn's book The Beatles that's included on the "I've Just Seen a Face" article? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That would have to be "General histories and biographies". DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would all of the books you haven't added be in that same section? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not; in "I've Just Seen a Face", there's also a book about Revolver, another on Rubber Soul, and a scholarly book on essays. None of these belong there. If you want, dump them in the "Beyond the Beatles" section and leave the sorting to me. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by dump them there? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's what I did for many of the books at first, and I sorted them after I grasped them thoroughly enough. So just leave them in that section. Excuse my coarse English. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, quick question, is this book by Marc Shapiro on George Harrison reliable? https://books.google.com/books?id=per-tSQ745gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+harrison+marc&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr9var_N6VAxUsk2oFHdQnDdQQ6AF6BAgNEAM Newtatoryd222 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, I haven't the faintest clue of what the book is worth. I can only refer to Goodreads, in which case the plentiful two-star and three-star reviews caution us against the book. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An author that has published a couple of Beatles books is Paul Du Noyer, here's his Goodreads page. https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/321163.Paul_Du_Noyer What books by him can I add? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The first two entries on the list have decent ratings as well as a decent number of ratings. That's the farthest my judgement of a Goodreads list goes, so you may consider asking a well-read Beatleshead on Wikipedia too. zmbro and Tkbrett seem quite knowledgeable. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Herostratus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joshua N W -- Joshua N W (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Herostratus has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joshua N W -- Joshua N W (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, I just wonder how it feels for someone to try and bring Herostratus' page to GA status. Because Herostratus isn't just another historical figure: he destroyed a religious site for the sole purpose of becoming famous. He would almost surely be ecstatic if he knew he'd be memorialised in a Wikipedia page written millenia after his death, moreso a GA. I'm personally reluctant to write about terrorists because it seems to be giving attention to people who, in my view, do not deserve it. The temple's page itself doesn't even have GA status, even though the temple's construction seems to me as a greater achievement than its destruction. I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on all this, what motivates you etc. Mind that I'm not accusing you of misconduct. Koopinator (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Koopinator. I chose to write about Herostratus because he was briefly discussed in a philosophy book, and that, for some reason, set my interest aflame. That's all I can say about my motives.

Now, I don't share your distaste for this terrorist's having a good article on Wikipedia. First of all, he is documented well enough in books and on the internet, and known to enough people across the world, that the battle against his remembrance can't be won. You may have noticed that one of Herostratus' contemporaries wrote down his name. So now that there's a Wikipedia article on him, it may as well be a good article. Secondly, we should think of how many scoundrels and demons have an article on Wikipedia... probably tens of thousands. Should their articles br erased so that history can forget them? Trump, Jimmy Savile, Eichmann, Andrew Johnson, and Pope Alexander VI weren't exactly terrorists, but all were, in my mind, stained with far worse characters than Herostratus. And I'm not sure that Herostratus was a pure scoundrel. In some historians' accounts, he appears as a lowly man crushed by society who tries again and again to be known for his merits and fails. After enough time, his disillusionment and fury flared and imploded, and he reacted against that tyrannous society by destroying one of its sacredest symbols. He sounds like a rebel to me. Thirdly, now that his name cannot reasonably be removed from our minds, I think we ought to remember it along with its nuances and lessons for us. How arrogant must we be to wrestle against the memory of the worst of our kind instead of learning from them? This is why I devoted much of the article to the recently-identified "Herostratus syndrome" that still spreads like a stench across people who turn to crime and horror, no less among them the president of the United States.

I hope I addressed your most interesting question in these few lines. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's a great answer, thank you. Mind you that I'm not against this per se, it's more something I've periodically chewed on within my mind. Koopinator (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply