User talk:Dave Dial

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6

Great catch

Great catch. This certainly isn't the first time he's tried to (1) mischaracterize a study; (2) insert his POV; or (3) turn Wikipedia into an ideological battlefield where he can somehow validate his beliefs. Good save. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blaxthos, I probably erred using the TPM link. It gave those who have a different WP:POV an excuse to alter the entry. But it was the first link in the news that discussed the poll. In any case, thanks again. DD2K (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perception, not Bias

Please explain why you moved it from perception to bias when the study is about the perception of viewers? It is hard to assume good faith when you are simply blanket reverting any changes without even consideration that another editor can add an improvement. Arzel (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FNC

Hey, can you review this edit? From your edit summary, it looks contrary to what it sounds like you intended to do... ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I agree that there need not be two, nor does it need to go so far as to say "Self described Progressive" when it's uncontested. I think you'll find that SeanNovak is dead set on labelling MMFA in the outset on the paragraph, especially given the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Turns out I was wrong about MMFA's mission, so I'm going to disengage from this point unless there becomes more contention about limiting the descriptions. Carry on, good sir! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, be careful -- "liberal" is not the self-descriptor chosen by MMFA, "progressive" is. This has been a HUGE point of contention in the past. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tb

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Let me know if you don't need the Tb template. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

03:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

04:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog usage policy

Please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons disallows the use of blogs as sources for statements about living people. See WP:BLP#Self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama claims

I am in complete agreement with you concerning Jzyehoshua's misrepresentations with respect to infanticide, eugenics, etc. Much more of this stuff and we will need to consider filing an WP:RFC/U or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser

please use checkuser. the only reason i edited the article is to get Bali's attention since am banned from editing his page it seems--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go against consensus

Obama article discussion-JB50000

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The facts are that he is non-denominational. Don't dumb down to Christianity, Muslim, Hindu broad categories. If so, then say "Obama is the 44th President of a North American country." JB50000 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake, give me a break. You are certainly love to put on this big act and make everything an extreme. Not buying it at all. DD2K (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not follow me around and don't take out useful links. I put in Alex Baldwin and it redirected me to Alex Baldwin (porno). I couldn't figure out how to get to the real Alex Baldwin until finally I found that the famous actor's name is Alec. So please leave the Alec Baldwin link in the porno actor's article. I can see why some don't want the porno actor's link in Alec's article because they don't like the way it looks but the other way around is very helpful to direct traffic to the intended page they want to see. JB50000 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF and accept your explanation of following me only to look for religion forum shopping. No, I am not forum shopping. The religion portal edit was just to get people to help me define the different religions and denominations as the Obama editors are not experts in that field. I am satisfied that my idea of the religion is a reasonable good idea. Even if the consensus rejects it eventually, there are enough people who understand my idea and enough people who support something similar to it. JB50000 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that out of the way and some kind of understanding reached, can you be my friend? JB50000 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Will you be my friend? JB50000 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to start a new article together? JB50000 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine with me. The reason I picked you is because I think you're ok. Some people in the Obama article are not ok, in my opinion. Cave in to them and they will think you are weak. I intend to defend the ideas that I brought up but transition to other articles and new articles. Those ideas that I brought up in the Obama article were for article improvement, discussing what the best way to include opinion, how to handle political positions (all of them, current ones, next election, or what?), bring his religion up to the same standard as other presidential articles follow, etc. Some mistake that for being anti-Obama. I can start a new article myself. I have several ideas. JB50000 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was slowly exiting the article, there's a new fight. People want to change 12 attorney law firm to small. Small is vague. Nobody is discussing it. Even if I don't like the current version, it seems that it must stay until changes discussed. Small might be considered demeaning because the truth is that the firm is somewhat famous and should be degraded as "small". JB50000 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your New Twin

Check out DD2010 (talk · contribs), it seems like you've got a new fan. Dayewalker (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoveOn.org

Tiring back and forth

Thank you for letting me know that every time I correct the membership box it dissappears. Does not do so on my end. Step 1: MoveOn.org claims to have the cure for cancer. Step 2: The Huffington Post reports "MoveOn.org claims to cure cancer." Step 3: DD2K will post on Wikipedia that "MoveOn.org CURES CANCER!!" Step 4: DD2K will claim it is sourced and needs to be left alone.

That is not how things work. Especially here on Wikipedia. I have left you many pages to read about how Wiki citations should be substantiate. If you have found that other pages here on Wikipedia are done this way than FIX THEM because they should not be that way. Let me ask again, which of the 18 NRA pages is in question? Bikeric (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is cut and pasted from the page I requested you to read. Since you did not, I will post it here.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Policy shortcuts: WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:SPS WP:TWITTER WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Where did you find that line of yours? Bikeric (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama break

I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

MoveOn.org

I removed the offending statement about yourself and Dayewalker being meatpuppets or sockpuppts from the MoveOn discussion page. Your welcome. I will not make those statements again without definitive proof.Bikeric (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About this Recent edit

Mh, guess, we know who that IP most likely is: [1].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suspicion too. Although dealing with that particular user has been exasperating, so I decided to put in a couple references outlining the fact that the organization is considered an organization. It's a trivial matter that the user seems to want to use WP:OR to prove something. Much like the last issue on that article. Keep up the great work. DD2K (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ogden

I am new here and I wanted to get some facts out about this candidate. The problem is there is very little out about him so I have trouble finding good sources, and apparently I can't write a section on his views from his campaign page- thanks, 1penguin30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.146.235 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American Firsts

I cannot see how my edit does not satisfy NPOV or any of the other policies you have stated. The edit has not been discussed on this page at all, and its inclusion or noninclusion on other pages has no merit as to whether or not it should be included on this page, which is of an entirely different nature than the pages you are refering to. Discuss it on the article's talk page if you will.XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Citizenship Conspiracies - Thanks for the help

I finally feel satisfied. Thanks for giving me an good explanation of why those sources were invalid. That really helps put my mind at ease. Other editors left some very vague, explanations, which was somewhat irratating. Happy editing and thanks for looking out for Wikipedia.

Your request for rollback

Hi Dave Dial. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Image of Barack Obama

Hi Dave Dial, I undid your edit changing the citation of Clarence Page as being from the Chicago Tribune. This is because though he may be a senior editor etc. at the Chicago Tribune, the article citation and the link given clearly is from chron.com, the online presence of the Houston Chronicle. If you found an alternative reference, then the reference itself should probably be cleaned up. Let me know here if you disagree. --Mistsrider (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you just made a mistake, but if the reference is to where the link is directing, then it was I who made the mistake. I know Page is a syndicated columnist picked up by various media outlets, but his main job is columnist and editor or the Tribune. In any case, I agree. Thanks for the clarity. DD2K (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I was not convassing. It was nonpartisan and unbiased. I'm trying to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Nothing biased, just trying to get more opinions.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now mass canvassing other editors to get the results the editor wants. That's not true at all. I'm simply trying to get more opinions so we can get a compromise. The invitations I sent out were nonpartisan and not biased at all. I don't understand why you have a problem with me sending out nonpartisan messages to get more opinions. Why do you have a problem with that?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I think that was the #5 revert by you today. If you revert the last one, I won't report you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would withdraw the 3RR notice, but I don't know the proper etiquette on the page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's Stimulus

Read this article: [2]. Although the CBO does disagree. We should include all of this information in the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term African-American

African-American is a term denoting cultural heritage for American slave descendents. Obamas heritage is Kenyan. The ancestors arent the same, so I disagress with your view that "one does not has to be descended from slaves to be African-American". Culturally you may be right but ancestrally you are incorrect.68.34.12.93 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with me, but the fact is the overwhelming number of sources disagree with you. African American denotes Americans who are decendants from Africa, especially those of Sub-Saharan ancestry(1,2,3). Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and verifiability, not personal opinions. Also posted on you IP talk page. DD2K (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I don't see the duck. Can you be more specific? Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

Since I've quoted you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Presidency of Barack Obama VandalismSomeone is vandalizing the Presidency of Barack Obama section. Thanks for your help! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I see it, and have undone the edits. I think. Someone needs to report the user as a sock. The exact name of the sock is on the Obama talk page. I am working right now, or I would file a report. Dave Dial (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good. Increased protection on this page is possibly warranted. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Requesting help re: disruptive editsDuchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)In reality, the sentence said:"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I know almost nothing about Rand Paul and am not very interested in that article. That particular user does have a penchant for linking to sources and claiming they state something they do not, but I don't wish to get involved in issues I have little knowledge or interest in. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]ORThis is not OR. I am not disputing your decision to remove the entry, but please be more accurate in your edit summaries. This is essential to preventing unnecessary irritation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]You Owe Me An ApologyWill you apologize to me? Ikilled007 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]See WP:SORRY. It is better to wait for an apology instead of demanding one. –MuZemike 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've been wrong before and will surly be wrong again. Obviously I was wrong here, and I apologize. And I mean that. Dave Dial (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]That is very big of you, and I appreciate it, and all is forgiven and forgotten. Thank you for being a stand-up guy. Ikilled007 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Obama - Muslim RegistrationI just looked at this article for the first time today and made my edits based primarily on what I found in the cited source. I searched the archives (which are substantial) to find any discussion on this, prior to making an edit, and couldn't. If there's a consensus on this... could you point me to the discussion? It doesn't appear that either source says that kids are registered by their fathers' faiths. One says they often are, and the other says Obama was. I think it's misleading and to suggest that this was the standard - absent a source for that. Also, is there a prohibition on using an external scanned document as a source (as opposed to a direct link)? It would seem helpful to the reader to be able to see the document (which appears to be undisputed). Thanks. John2510 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Kilpatrick-Cox photoFair enough, solo cox picture it is. Thank you. Jeff_Jeff_Yo That Cox and Kwame picture is 100% LEGIT! No photoshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Jeff Yo (talk • contribs) 17:32, September 13, 2010ESaid/BObamaI don't know if I can ever meet your concerns, nor you mine, but I've given it another try here. Thanks for your interest. Here's hoping! Swliv (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]HogwashSpeculation concerning Mike Cox's Assistant Attorney General's motivation for his highly unusual behavior is patently relevant to a discussion stream there. The story has generated a national following and the Attorney General is a politician who may or may not be pursuing a political agenda. If Mr. Shirvell were motivated by closeted self-loathing (as the other writer speculated based on physical and audible cues from his national interview) and if employment decisions were being made to pacify an anti-gay policial base all of it is of prime interest to readers of wikipedia.--Fpetes (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Do not post bullying warnings to attempt to censor speech that you do not like based on your rigid policial deficiencies. Who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpetes (talk • contribs) 14:38, October 5, 2010Barack Obama PresidencyHello. I think we should add somewhere in the article about the results of the elections in 2010 and the Republicans retaking control of the house. I couldn't figure out where else to put it or I would have put it somewhere else. Where should we add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 16:38, November 8, 2010 Sorry about that. I started a discussion on the Discussion page of the Barack Obama Presidency article. Please let me know what you think. talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]Can you help me fix something?Hello. Sorry to bother you, but could you help me fix the infoboxes on the article Randy Hultgren. The names in his various office boxes are too far over to the right and it just seems all messed up. Thank You! Politics2012 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Barack Obama (polls)Hello, DD2K. Could you explain, why you dislike RCP. After all, it includes data of all major polls and has individual poll results, besides the average one. It also includes links for every individual poll. So I think there is nothing wrong with it. Sasha best (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]