User talk:DD2K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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


I do apologize, I didn't look at the other parts edited just the part that was not supported by the source so I undid the whole thing.--Hashi0707 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Rodham Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dave, I've respected your edits on WP for awhile on a number of topics, and given that you somewhat involved yourself with what is going on on Talk:Barack Obama, I wanted your advice on what to do or to ask you to make a report on the noticeboard. I'm really not familiar with how to go about that process. Oldnewnew has left a message on my talk page that shows he/she hasn't learned anything and is going to continue with the WP:POINT behavior. The user outright admits to carrying out a campaign of edits that they disagree with, yet has not stopped doing so (as can be seen from their user contributions). There is a denial of violating WP:POINT, while admitting to the exact text of that page. Despite any denial, I can see no reason for launching a campaign of edits on multiple articles that, as far as I can tell, the editor in question had no previous connection, admitting to edits that they disagree with, other than to draw the attention of other editors or to throw a tantrum (apologies in advance if that is overly strong language). I don't know where to go about reporting this or how to do it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello there @OuroborosCobra:, and thanks, I have the same respect. What I would do is ignore the editor for now, unless or until they start making those pointy edits again. Even though it does seem as though they have not learned, that type of behavior will end up making an editing career short. Keep up the good work! Dave Dial (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Please stop edit warring on the Clinton move discussion, and add your comment where it belongs. You're already over WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I asked before and was told that editors can respond to !votes, and that I had no right to remove another editors comment. There are several comments from Supporters in the Oppose section, as well as in the Neutral section. My comment should stay and it's incredulous that it keeps being removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

From you, yesterday: "And I'm going to ask you once again to move your comment from my oppose vote, before I remove it. The discussion thread is for discussion, the survey are for the voting. As described in the instructions here." [1] Calidum T|C 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DD2K reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my !vote at the above-referenced AN/I discussion, please don't take it personally. If you note, I voted VERY conservatively and only for the first part of #1. The rest of it was BS and completely over-the-top. The reason why I voted to support the first part of #1 was because you have already made your feelings about the HRC move known numerous times as the discussion. It's my opinion that to do so further could raise more bad faith among those not in agreement with you in addition to add more fuel to the fire that surrounded the edit warring report filed. More importantly (and please take this with the best of intentions behind it), because of the edit warring that ensued, I think you might be doing yourself a favor to be removed from the discussion -- in order to stay out of trouble. Would hate to see you blocked, it's simply not worth it. Best,-- WV 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Well @Winkelvi:, I'm definitely not going to hold a grudge or anything. I do appreciate what you are saying, and I could have been blocked for edit warring and couldn't complain. Even though I believed I was right, I obviously know it's no excuse. But to dignify that ANI filing with a vote is something I don't believe is justified. I mean, the accusations are ridiculous and there is no way that any admin should block me or ban me from that process. Any more than they should block or ban the proposers for cherry picking the data and dates from their proposals. It's just absurd. But I'm not holding a grudge, and will try and tone it down. Take care.(Also @Blackmane:, thanks for the notification.) Dave Dial (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Blackmane (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch[edit]

Dear Dave, I've deconstructed your newspaper search - again. Please don't take this personally. I don't feel too strong about the result of the RM (although I do prefer the short version), and I certainly don't want to pick on you. This latest error was something that can easily happen, and could have happened to me, too. Indeed, when I first tried my queries, I put a space between the "-" and the search term ("Hillary Rodham Clinton" - "Hillary Clinton", and got only 5540 hits (which would have made a very strong case for the move). Luckily, I found the error before I hit "save page" - that wrong result has a certain "smell" that made me double-check. These issues are subtle, and easy to get wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Stephan Schulz: I've responded on the RM page. But just to reiterate my explanation there, I did the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" comparative "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham search on purpose, and my reason being that I'm not trying to claim that HRC is never referred to as HC. She is. But in many sources it's for brevity and only in the headlines. Sometimes they use both, but in most sources, the vast majority, from 1983-2003, she is referred to as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Thanks for the polite inquiry. Dave Dial (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry to assume a mistake when you did it on purpose. I thing we already exchanged our different interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME. Anyways, have a good weekend - it's past midnight here in Old Europe, and I'll try to turn in for tonight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem @Stephan Schulz:, you have a good weekend too. I have friends in 'Old Europe', specifically in Germany. I also do ancestry research and large portions of my family are from Germany. Good night. Dave Dial (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)