Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 4 May 2018

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Old Archive 1	Old Archive 2
Old Archive 3	Old Archive 4
Old Archive 5	Old Archive 6- The Beginning

Thanks for calling me Grant:)

Its been a long time since anyone here did. You may be right. I have been feeling really hurt (I must be more of a softie than I thought) about the topic wide ban. It feels to me like a sort of editing castration. U.S. politics is my primary interest. However, maybe it'll work out to be a good thing as I will be forced to expand my interests. I will definitely stop the kind of editing you noticed. Best wishes, Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Nocturnalnow: That's a good way to look at things, for sure. If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you can go over to recent changes and revert vandalism. That may peak your interest. I am not sure if your topic ban includes reverting obvious vandalism or not, so best to either stay clear of those articles or ask if you are allowed to revert obvious vandalism on those articles. Another thing I might do is look for articles from my local community and, if we don't already have one, write articles about my local community. I hope you take it easy and find some enjoyment in one of those things, or something else that you might be interested in. Good luck and take care! Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ok...feels like good suggestions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: AE sanctions

Hi,

Just wondering about the AE sanctions on United States pro-life movement. I can't seem to find any source for that being the case - am I looking in the wrong spot? Thanks.--immewnity 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

About trolling

Hi, thanks for pointing out a pattern in the edits from the troll IP. I hadn't seen that pattern, since there are also what look like overriding language problems such as possibly confounding exaggeration with diversification. Certainly, this person shouldn't be trying to edit the English wikipedia, but not all of their edits are incompetent, so it seemed worth a try to explain that which it seemed unlikely that they could comprehend. Perhaps it would be on behalf of whoever has the task of educating them in RL. Onward and upward, or something, but thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit summary] you wrote; "You seem incapable of understanding simple instructions" which is a personal attack. If you're going to preach policy, try following it. Per WP:BRD, the content was boldly removed. It was then reverted back in. After that, if you or scjessey want still want it removed, you need to make a case for it on the talk page. You have now reverted four (4) different editors and you are essentially edit warring. Go discuss it like everyone else. - WOLFchild 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• What the fuck? Now I see why your privileges were removed. It was added here, THAT was the BOLD part of BRD, and then reverted here, that is the REVERT portion. Jessey started a discussion on the Talk page, that is the DISCUSSION portion. I can';t lay it out any simpler than that for you. Dave Dial (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You think attacking me and using bogus warning templates will somehow bolster your case? Just stick to the issue. Four different editors disagree with you. That says something. - WOLFchild 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement is part of the process, something you seem to have never figured out. The edit is now added out of the BRD and discussion process. With you edit warring and making illogical and unneeded edits on the Talk page. Address the concerns, don't edit war. Dave Dial (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you capable of "disagreeing" without insulting others, falsely accusing others of edit warring while edit warring yourself, abusing warning templates, editing others talk page comments and then trying to hide them simply because you don't like them? If you have something to say about the content currently being debated, then say it. Stop breaking every rule you can while complaining about others not following them. If you have to step away to cool down then do so, but stop attacking me and altering my comments. Those things you simply aren't allowed to do. - WOLFchild 17:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You've shown you don't understand(or are purposely ignoring) BRD, and adding a new section with colored blockquotes and a ref list wasn't needed on the Talk page at all. I did address my concerns on the Talk page, which you ignored to make your needless subheading. And yes, you were edit warring to insert contested material in a BLP article. I was reverting to go back to the status quo during the discussion phase. But I stopped reverting when it was clear you would continue to edit war, and I didn't want to continue it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Response

I am happy to edit if it's collegial and collaborative. Not if I am constantly being harassed. Even worse when it gets to my talkpage. I am sorry but a public official barked; I've never heard or seen anyone do this before except in cartoons; it's not a stretch to say it was "irrational". I self-censored to be collegial and collaborative because some editors thought that was inappropriate and you still tried to harass me about this. Please stop. Make this about the content, not personal attacks towards editors. There are lots of references about the barking and her Super PAC advertisement, that's why I brought it up. I'd like you to remove the threat from the talkpage please and if everyone disagrees with me about the barking and we can't reach consensus, of course it won't go in the article despite all the third-party sources. But harassing other editors when you disagree with them has consequences in real life. I am a human being, not a punching bag.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are taking my posts as bullying or harassment, I apologize. But just please just relax and step back for awhile. This is just an encyclopedia on the internet, and I couldn't care less about the article or Talk page right now. Just as one person to another, everything is cool. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. I don't feel safe visiting that talkpage at the moment, but honestly I feel sorry about this because we should be able to discuss campaign issues with multiple third-party references lest this becomes a POV campaign ad. It's the same issue with the secret transcripts, which should be getting a request for comment.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The request for comment has been removed. I've never seen anything like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dave Dial. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dave Dial. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Abusive comment?

Did you really write this, or has somebody gained access to your account?  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You think that's abusive? Hmmm. I think it was relevant to the manner in which AfDs & such are run. Along with the current groupings & bro culture that prospers here with little to no self-awareness. And no, nobody has gained access to my account. Dave Dial (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, well, yes, I do find it abusive. You're free to express your opinion, but please WP:AGF and please keep it WP: CIVIL.  Continued use of that sort of language can result in being blocked.  And FWIW, you have no idea how far my lifestyle is from bro culture. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen you around & observed your decisions, and reached my own conclusions of both your claim here & decisions you've made. I've reached a similar conclusion by your threat to block me. Ciao. Dave Dial (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

nazi party page

I read the talk page. I have read it several times. How is reading this page supposed to solve this dispute? Dsteakley (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Border

Re this, what's that border thing supposed to do anyway? The guy isn't very responsive on his UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss:You can't even tell it's there. If you zoom in, there is a small gray border outline that can't be seen if you're not looking for it. But it causes errors in HTML mouseover codes. He's been told numerous times about it, I had thought he stopped doing it. But you're right, he almost never responds to other editors and just keeps making edit after edit. Dave Dial (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. Yeah I remember running into that from him 2-3 years ago, I just forgot what he told me about it. If it's causing errors, and he's removing other stuff like that scaling to make it work, it's a significant behavior problem and he needs a ban from doing it. Not that I'm the guy to raise that, of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

He agreed to stop doing it at ANI in March of 2016. But I've been gone from the project for the most part for a year or so. I would rather he just stopped, than go back there. Dave Dial (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

CIA is a trustworthy source

Hi Dave,

why do you delete the information, that the Vatican is an absolute monarchy? The source is the CIA's factbook which is supposed to be a trustworthy source. Please explain:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print_vt.html

--CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

First of all, thanks for all the work you're doing over at Involuntary celibacy. I know you weren't thrilled with the way I created it, but I am very grateful for your efforts in keeping the quality up. Second, I just saw this edit: do you have a source you could add? The current one does say it's alleged. Again, thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey GW, no prob and I appreciate the work you are doing on the article too. As for the edit and "allegedly" being added, the very first source states he made the post and it was verified by Facebook reps. I do not see any ambiguity in their reporting on whether Minassian made the FB post. Dave Dial (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Add ping)@GorillaWarfare: Dave Dial (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you (and thanks for the ping—I'm bad at watchlisting where I post on talk pages). I threw in an inline cite to that reference just so it's clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good and no prob! Dave Dial (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page in the future, thanks. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)