User talk:Dave Dial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:DD2K)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6- The Beginning

Thanks for calling me Grant:)[edit]

Its been a long time since anyone here did. You may be right. I have been feeling really hurt (I must be more of a softie than I thought) about the topic wide ban. It feels to me like a sort of editing castration. U.S. politics is my primary interest. However, maybe it'll work out to be a good thing as I will be forced to expand my interests. I will definitely stop the kind of editing you noticed. Best wishes, Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Nocturnalnow: That's a good way to look at things, for sure. If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you can go over to recent changes and revert vandalism. That may peak your interest. I am not sure if your topic ban includes reverting obvious vandalism or not, so best to either stay clear of those articles or ask if you are allowed to revert obvious vandalism on those articles. Another thing I might do is look for articles from my local community and, if we don't already have one, write articles about my local community. I hope you take it easy and find some enjoyment in one of those things, or something else that you might be interested in. Good luck and take care! Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
ok...feels like good suggestions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: AE sanctions[edit]

Hi,

Just wondering about the AE sanctions on United States pro-life movement. I can't seem to find any source for that being the case - am I looking in the wrong spot? Thanks.--immewnity 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

About trolling[edit]

Hi, thanks for pointing out a pattern in the edits from the troll IP. I hadn't seen that pattern, since there are also what look like overriding language problems such as possibly confounding exaggeration with diversification. Certainly, this person shouldn't be trying to edit the English wikipedia, but not all of their edits are incompetent, so it seemed worth a try to explain that which it seemed unlikely that they could comprehend. Perhaps it would be on behalf of whoever has the task of educating them in RL. Onward and upward, or something, but thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

Any further discussion can be made on Talk page of article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit summary] you wrote; "You seem incapable of understanding simple instructions" which is a personal attack. If you're going to preach policy, try following it. Per WP:BRD, the content was boldly removed. It was then reverted back in. After that, if you or scjessey want still want it removed, you need to make a case for it on the talk page. You have now reverted four (4) different editors and you are essentially edit warring. Go discuss it like everyone else. - theWOLFchild 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  • What the fuck? Now I see why your privileges were removed. It was added here, THAT was the BOLD part of BRD, and then reverted here, that is the REVERT portion. Jessey started a discussion on the Talk page, that is the DISCUSSION portion. I can';t lay it out any simpler than that for you. Dave Dial (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You think attacking me and using bogus warning templates will somehow bolster your case? Just stick to the issue. Four different editors disagree with you. That says something. - theWOLFchild 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Disagreement is part of the process, something you seem to have never figured out. The edit is now added out of the BRD and discussion process. With you edit warring and making illogical and unneeded edits on the Talk page. Address the concerns, don't edit war. Dave Dial (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you capable of "disagreeing" without insulting others, falsely accusing others of edit warring while edit warring yourself, abusing warning templates, editing others talk page comments and then trying to hide them simply because you don't like them? If you have something to say about the content currently being debated, then say it. Stop breaking every rule you can while complaining about others not following them. If you have to step away to cool down then do so, but stop attacking me and altering my comments. Those things you simply aren't allowed to do. - theWOLFchild 17:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You've shown you don't understand(or are purposely ignoring) BRD, and adding a new section with colored blockquotes and a ref list wasn't needed on the Talk page at all. I did address my concerns on the Talk page, which you ignored to make your needless subheading. And yes, you were edit warring to insert contested material in a BLP article. I was reverting to go back to the status quo during the discussion phase. But I stopped reverting when it was clear you would continue to edit war, and I didn't want to continue it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response[edit]

I am happy to edit if it's collegial and collaborative. Not if I am constantly being harassed. Even worse when it gets to my talkpage. I am sorry but a public official barked; I've never heard or seen anyone do this before except in cartoons; it's not a stretch to say it was "irrational". I self-censored to be collegial and collaborative because some editors thought that was inappropriate and you still tried to harass me about this. Please stop. Make this about the content, not personal attacks towards editors. There are lots of references about the barking and her Super PAC advertisement, that's why I brought it up. I'd like you to remove the threat from the talkpage please and if everyone disagrees with me about the barking and we can't reach consensus, of course it won't go in the article despite all the third-party sources. But harassing other editors when you disagree with them has consequences in real life. I am a human being, not a punching bag.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are taking my posts as bullying or harassment, I apologize. But just please just relax and step back for awhile. This is just an encyclopedia on the internet, and I couldn't care less about the article or Talk page right now. Just as one person to another, everything is cool. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing. I don't feel safe visiting that talkpage at the moment, but honestly I feel sorry about this because we should be able to discuss campaign issues with multiple third-party references lest this becomes a POV campaign ad. It's the same issue with the secret transcripts, which should be getting a request for comment.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The request for comment has been removed. I've never seen anything like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)