User talk:David A

Talk Archive 1

A heads-up

You wrote: "I agree that this seems suspicious."

I explained to Motsebboh and Jason from nyc my concerns about their comments. Since you said you agreed with them, you and I may disagree. Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article you linked does it claim that Ali is a feminist?

In the article, Ali claims that Linda Sarsour is a "fake feminist", but nowhere does she state that she is a feminist. I think a better source is needed for such a bold claim. R00b07 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is this video, so I am pretty sure that she is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wJkFQohIKNI However, I have problems finding any articles where she states it outright. David A (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There in lies the problem. Being pretty sure that someone is something and being sure that someone is something are two different things. Giving a source that doesn't back up the claim you made doesn't nothing to help your case, in fact it hinders it. By stating that Ali is something that she (to my knowledge) has never said she is, is in direct conflict with WP:BLP. I highly recommend you remove the part about her being a feminist, or give a better source to back up your claim. I do not intend to have an edit war, especially over something that can be easily fixed or easily avoided. I am more than willing to work with you, if you are willing to work with me. R00b07 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already removed it. David A (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

I saw the thread about xtremedood you made and he was topic banned. Can you take a look at user Mackhan on Abdullah al Harari and Ahbash related pages. This user has removed refs and censored material skillfully since 2006. This group is a moderate pro womens rights organization and fundamentalists hate them. 2601:681:8000:5776:9DED:18C1:26C4:8F6B (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to help, and I agree with your cause of helping oppressed women. However, the problem is that I am already extremely overworked from taking care of a very popular entertainment wiki 9 hours every day, and also not informed about the situation or the subject matter. As such, I do not have the time to investigate for long periods of time. It would be better if you assemble extensive reference edits for the censorship on your own, and then create a complaint. Alternately, if that is not possible, you could assemble and post them here, and I might be able to do so. David A (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I assembled them thanks for your time. In 2005 he posted on a forum to spread the word that the group is a cult [1] The individual created an article on the same day but the article was deleted [2] New article was created by other users, he then spammed the article talk page with posts [3]

Removal of references sometimes with ip address[4] [5] [6] [7] alters reference by adding "claims" and adds 2 unreliable reference and writes "denied" [8]

Calls group cult on talk [9]

More refs removed on founders page [10] [11] [12] 64.64.117.81 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

warning by moderator in 2012 [13] 64.64.117.81 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. I cannot make a complaint right now, but will check this up when I find the time. My apologies for the inconvenience. David A (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring SOCK

You might want to keep an eye on Doctor Doom, where an edit-warring IP is now edit-warring as a sockpuppet registered as Impending IP. I only ask since you've reverted him once already. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the heads-up. David A (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Serious BLP in edit summary

BLP applies to edit summaries, talk pages, etc. You must not call people Communists, Nazis etc in edit summaries unless it's accepted knowledge. Doug Weller talk 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I have heard, Jerzy Sarnecki has stated himself that he is a communist, but okay, I will avoid doing so. David A (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You know "heard" isn't enough and I've spent some time searching. Sounds like an attack by someone who doesn't like him. I did find one attack on him for being a Jew. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am half-Jewish agnostic or atheist myself, with half of my family tree exterminated by Nazis, so that is obviously not the reason why I dislike him. It is due to that he seems to act as an apologist demagogue for Islamists who wish to continue what the Nazis started.

Anyway, you are absolutely correct in that I overreacted. I think that I read that he was a communist in one of Tino Sanandaji's blog posts, or that my father mentioned it to me, but that is obviously not sufficient reason to make public accusations. David A (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is an article that references different interviews with Sarnecki, in which it does seem like his father was a communist, but it is unclear if he himself subscribes to the ideology. Another interesting part is that he is a self-stated dyslexic, who only skims briefly through research reports: http://www.morpheusblogg.se/2017/04/16/jerzy-sarnecki-talar-ut-i-polsk-media/ David A (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 16:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC).

Comment

David I do want to help but I'm trying to take a Wikibreak and I keep getting sucked back in to content disputes that seem to defy resolution. I sympathize and personally I have found that that other editor seems to regularly take article prose further than the sourcing supports, and quickly becomes combative when it's suggested to track the source more closely. That said, I have had absolutely zero success getting past an editor's use of WP:CONSENSUS to exclude material that seems obviously important to the article. It seems that consensus is actually a veto power that any editor can wield against content that he disputes for any reason, valid or otherwise. Unfortunately, even if you are 100% right (which I really couldn't say)—you will probably have your work cut out for you. I will say that I generally avoid direct citation to data of any sort; I prefer using sourced analysis about data because it's easier to color within the lines that way (even though citation to primary sources is often proper). For contentious claims, this is less of a lazy technique or "best practice", and more of a policy constraint—since we're supposed to avoid novel interpretations of data. I can't tell enough from a quick look at the diffs whether the figures cited by either of you are well-anchored in RS commentary.

I may have some time in about six weeks to join the discussion, if there's any chance that will help. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks anyway. If it helps, I left various links to statistics in the talk page of the article. David A (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw, although the fact I don't speak Swedish prevented the kind of lazy/quick-and-dirty analysis I was hoping for. All my past editing on Sweden-bashing was based off of deciphering Google translate results—a bit slow and laborious. Again, I'm sorry to be lazy because I sympathize with the spot you're in, but I really have bitten off more than I can chew and need to get myself off-Wiki for a while. I will review the dispute as I'm able and chime in if I have something to add. Best of luck and may God help me if I'm still logged in 72 hours from now Factchecker_atyourservice 21:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry to hear that. I think that Wikipedia seems to become increasingly slanted and inaccurate, and less neutral, fact-based, NPOV. It is very depressing. David A (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Immigration to Sweden. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

David, I have seen you canvass several times. This comment is a blatant example of it. You also seem to go around talk pages and make drive by comments "I agree with Jason" (without explanation) and "I agree with Factchecker" (again, without explanation). Please stop the canvassing.VR _talk 05:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for help on two occasions, in order to stop POV-pushing systematic censorship. That's it. I was not aware of that this is not allowed. And I do not see the problem with simply supporting people who fight for causes that I believe in. I am extremely busy managing my entertainment wiki, and do not have much time to spend here. David A (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a tip

Looking at the latest things you've written on talkpages and in edit summaries, I have a suggestion, and I do hope you take it in the spirit in which it is intended: relax! Honestly, I think that would be the best thing for you. You say you're handling a large entertainment wiki? Immerse yourself in that instead. Enjoy yourself, and stop reading garbage like Nyheteridag and Gatestone. Sweden won't collapse, our institutions won't fall apart, there's no hostile immigrant muslim sharia takeover happening. Our country will be here when you resurface, cold and rainy as it may be. Also, regarding the many (many, many) accusations of censorship, do consider the boy who cried wolf. People disagree about what to include on wikipedia every day, on pretty much every topic. Calling it censorship is never a good idea, and will only backfire.

Anyway, take care. I've been stressed out myself on several occasions, and I do think it's valuable to take a break every now and then. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern. I work around 63 hours a week taking care of the VS Battles wiki, spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country, and now I am on a 1000 calorie a day diet as well. I am not feeling well, to say the least.

However, I feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country (for example, over a 100 cars in Malmö were torched during the Easter holiday alone). If people remain blissfully unaware, the situation is only going to get considerably worse, and it is likely already far too late to do anything about.

As such, I get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole. David A (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)