User talk:DanielRigal

Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you!

Belteshazzar

I noticed the recent SPI. He's using a vpn service [1] as his home IP is still blocked. I have been reporting his sock-puppets since 2021. He shows no sign of empathy or understanding. Every time he is blocked he just comes back after a few months because he has duped himself into thinking he is improving this website. Every edit he has made on this website has been reverted. When his real IP is unblocked, he will just re-create a new account. For now he will just use those proxy IPs. Not possible to get a range block because he is choosing different locations every time. BTW when this user gets bored he stalks users recent editing history and starts making edits to articles you have recently edited. In regard to myself I have 1000s of articles on my watchlist, if he does that to me, I will know and I will report his IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I guessed it would be something like that. My hope is that page protection will stop him reinstating his existing edits but it won't stop him from causing trouble elsewhere. If he does start on stuff already on my watchlist that's probably better than if he picks random targets. At least I'm more likely to catch him if he does that. Also, if he wades into some of the contentious articles I've been on recently then he could easily get himself "shot from both sides" of a bunch of controversies that he doesn't even understand. I mean, I'd very much rather he didn't, but if he does then it might at least offer some grim comedy. DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

He's back on a new IP, now editing articles I have edited [2]. This guy is clearly mentally insane. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar is back on [3] editing Charles Ingram. Do you think it is worth getting page protection on that article? Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Initially I wasn't sure whether that IP really was him but looking again I see that he has edited a couple of articles, one pretty new and obscure, that he obviously found by looking at my recent edit history so, yeah, that's him doing the same thing to me as he has done to you in the past. He is avoiding editing any of the usual policy pages so far but I think that's maybe his idea of being inconspicuous and also that some of them are still protected. DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

He is back editing on the same IP [4], following me around [5]. The admin blocked his IP for only 72hours. I don't see the point of that, they need to be blocked for 3 or 6 months because he will just keep using them otherwise. I am not too happy how this is being handled. We need much stronger blocks here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand why IPs are normally only blocked for a short time but this is the second time he has returned to that one. I agree that it should be blocked for the longer term as I assume it is a proxy of some sort. Where do you think we should go with this? ANI? DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I reported his account to the ANI board. There doesn't appear to be much interest in his disruption, because of WP:DENY which is a good idea he should be ignored but his IPs are too slow at getting blocked. He is damaging articles and it takes time to revert his nonsense. I have had a private email discussion with an admin about his stalking of my editing which has been going on for a year. There is not much than can be done. He is using different VPN, so range blocks will be out of the question. His home IP address was check-user blocked quite a few months ago, probably for 6 months. After that expires he will probably create more accounts. I am watching many articles so will always find him but it is a waste of my time because I have productive things to be doing. I would like an admin to block his latest IP for 3 months or at least weeks, not days. Stronger blocks would definitely help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have requested an admin to look into it. Also Margaret Darst Corbett probably needs page protection. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. Wes sideman (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've had any involvement in that article before but it looks pretty cut and dried so I've given an opinion. DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Brandon Teena

Yes it was accidental (my fault there). Was looking further for a better reference when you reverted. here is a better source to confirm what I was working upon rectifying.

I fail to see how Playboy is a reliable source, myself, for a topic of this nature above all others. No worries Regards, Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

trans woman

That's enough! You all know exactly what you are doing and pretending not to is just disruptive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HI. I did not understand the hyphen was objectionable. Did some reading and can now see the reasons people might find it so. It remains however confusing to me because you usually use the hyphen to connect two words into the one concept and trans-sexual for example after common use becomes eventually transsexual. Using two words to denote an entity seems odd to me (as in trans woman) - maybe transwoman would be appropriate (... and then no - I suddenly realised what a minefield that would be)? Anyway still negotiating the new-speak/newspeak and didn't mean to offend (I actually capitalised Trans-people because I thought some people might find trans-people/trans people offensive (as in black people/Black people)). Didn't mean offence and apologies if it caused any. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I'm stretching my benefit of the doubt here by assuming you didn't do this deliberately, but you should know that "newspeak" in this context is also a dogwhistle. --Pokelova (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I did not do this deliberately other than to point out the inherent wrongness of the association to Rowling and inappropriateness given the nature of the subject matter. The majority of the contributors I have noticed their talk pages might be described as sympathetic (even militant) in their support for LGBT+. I like many people have LGBT persons in my family and am fully supportive of their rights to enjoy a full life in absence of prejudice. I would just note my own experience on this subject: I have been described as 'them' , have had my voice silenced (or truncated to a tab) and been minimised in all sorts of other ways ... illuminating isn't it? The page (and content) has also been described as a Project - odd talk to describe the writing up of someones murder. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I don't know what you think you are doing beyond confirming all my initial suspicions. "The project" is Wikipedia. I don't know what you think it is and, to be honest, I don't much care. If you can edit Wikipedia without being disruptive or disingenuous then please feel free to do so. If not, maybe go elsewhere. Either way, I don't propose to argue further. DanielRigal (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC) ... also everything seems to be a dogwhistle to you. I have never used that term in my life nor heard it before now ... Looked it up: "a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group.". I think you credit me with too much insight into LGBT politics! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack in section title redacted)

Miscellaneous IP trolls trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Daniel just noted you used the term anti-semitism on your user page. I'm sure you will note as per the conversation we just had (and the standard you set) how this might be interpreted as a codeword amongst antisemites. Just giving you fair warning lest anybody report you for antisemitism. See how stupid people can make this sound - please don't misinterpret a mistake as presupposed by someone else's grammatical standards as an intentional dig on my (or anybody else's) part in the future. Grumpy - dark ale is a good elixir to that (unless it sends you to darker places later on)! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Clearly it says Daniel can't stand antisemitism. What is your point? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC) My point is that a previous User had pointed out that the hypernation was actually a code-word (dogwhistle is the term she used) for people who are vociferous about something (but don't actually believe it). Nonsense, but the rationale that was used. The point being that the same grammatical rationale can be used in ways you might least expect. Also - the virtue-signalling of the Wikipedia Project being the paramount virtue. I actually agree on this and see the biggest corruption of Wikipedia being on pages that are distorted by special interest groups. I usually engage in topics of history - but this one took my interest. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Well done. You spotted a several years old spelling mistake which pre-dates my (and my spell checker's) learning about the hyphenation and spacing issues in terms of that type and you successfully exploited it to continue your deliberate trolling and kvetching. I don't propose to be drawn into further argumentation. If you really believed that Wikipedia was corrupted by unnamed "special interest groups" then you wouldn't be trying to argue here. Remember that a successful troll is still just a troll. Now go away before this winds up on one of the noticeboards. DanielRigal (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC) It's not an error Daniel (and don't let anyone tell you it is)! Sadly you're another that feels the need to signal your virtuosity and thereafter conduct yourself by check-boxing everybody else into nether categories (the last being a very English trait). It doesn't take a genius to realise why you might always be grumpy. I'll check back in a month or so and if you wish for any professional help I'll be happy to oblige (or else, I'll just FO). In any event, Best Wishes! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sealioning

Hello DR

I would ask you to have a look at my contributions, to the Minshull article and generally, and reflect on your comment.

In that article I have been trying, as constructively as I can, to get the point across that it's not just the sources. It's what you make of them. I, like everyone else who is criticising the way that we present that information (some very forcefully), get stonewalled.

As you are 'uninvolved' I take the forum comment on the chin but I'm trying to get some engagement with the point I make above and you are right in that it ends up being forum.

I am at a loss really.

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Cab Rank Rule

Hi, I was reading the subsequent edits of the IP editor from Cumbria and wondered if the history section is an example of WP:COATRACK? Rankersbo (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. It definitely seems excessive coverage with the quotes and everything. DanielRigal (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The detailed quotes are of similar prominence and intended to provide an important balance to the existing unbalanced historical note and quotes.

I am keen to get this history to a point where everyone is happy with it.

Please discuss on the Talk:Cab-rank_rule page.

194.113.45.137 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)