User talk:DallyKale
Yackity yack
May 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Voice for Men. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I see you're an administrator. I don't intend to revert or edit the same content again but I'd really like to get some outside input here. There's at least one editor on the talk page arguing that commentators being feminist isn't relevant to their criticism of an anti-feminist website. Seems very strange. Also seems strange that the criticism section is the largest section of the article - is that typical? Where do you suggest I post to get some outside input? DallyKale (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- It also feels like I'm being made to jump through unnecessary hoops - for example, if you read this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Voice_for_Men#.27Feminist.27_commentators you'll see that one editor insists I include sources for "feminist" in "feminist commentators" to describe commentators whose BLPs describe them as feminists - using those same sources. That seems redundant and again strange. DallyKale (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm an admin, and I'm glad to hear you don't intend to change to your version again. I was very concerned to see you adding the "feminist" qualifier six times in the past two-three days to the sentence "AVFM's rhetoric has been described as misogynist and hateful by commentators such as," etc, so as to make it read "feminist commentators such as" etc — edit warring against four other users. You certainly don't have consensus for your version. Of course I understand that there are other issues to discuss than just that one word.
- To get wider input, you can start an RFC on the article talkpage — please read the instructions here. The reason you need to use a template is that it'll automatically list your RFC on this page, which is rather essential for notifying uninvolved editors that it exists. Don't forget to make the RFC statement short and neutral. You can argue for your own view below it, just like everybody else, but not in the statement or the header. You can click on the topics listed on the RFC page to get a sense of where your RFC would most naturally fit, and attract most interest. None of them fit really well, but I would suppose "Politics, government, and law" would be best. It's up to you.
- Alternatively, or additionally, you can take your issue to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. (Better put a note about it on article talk if you do.) Bishonen | talk 18:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC).
- I can see why that would warrant attention. Actually it was 5 times, not 6 - but still too many. One of those [1] was in response to an editor's revert of unrelated "unsourced" content (which I hadn't noticed) - so I restored only the part he didn't seem to object to ("feminist".) The other was in response to the request that "feminist" be directly sourced, so I added sources and re-included it. But those other 3, like you said, were unnecessary. Only 3 of the 4 editors commented on the talk page at all, and only one (so far) has made any sort of argument for it's exclusion. Just seems like an awful lot of work and editors involved for what should be an uncontroversial change - describing commentators who we describe in their articles as "feminist commentators" - as feminist commentators! I hope to engage further on that talk page and I appreciate your guidance on the RFC, I will go that route, thanks. DallyKale (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck. About the five times or six times: I was assuming the IP edit here was made by you editing logged out, since it added a sentence that you then restored word for word several times. But even if that wasn't you, and I'll take your word for it, you were certainly edit warring. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC).
- RFC added. Just a note that I reverted a recent addition to the criticism section. This was not part of the edit war earlier but new content added without talk page consensus. I believe my revert was within policy as the same justification was used to revert my edit, but if not let me know and I'll un-revert it. The RFC should settle the issue re:this added content. DallyKale (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can see why that would warrant attention. Actually it was 5 times, not 6 - but still too many. One of those [1] was in response to an editor's revert of unrelated "unsourced" content (which I hadn't noticed) - so I restored only the part he didn't seem to object to ("feminist".) The other was in response to the request that "feminist" be directly sourced, so I added sources and re-included it. But those other 3, like you said, were unnecessary. Only 3 of the 4 editors commented on the talk page at all, and only one (so far) has made any sort of argument for it's exclusion. Just seems like an awful lot of work and editors involved for what should be an uncontroversial change - describing commentators who we describe in their articles as "feminist commentators" - as feminist commentators! I hope to engage further on that talk page and I appreciate your guidance on the RFC, I will go that route, thanks. DallyKale (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org.
Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org.Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).