User talk:DanielRigal/2019

Willfully suppressing information.

Earlier I submitted my complaint about Objective3000 to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

No results. Then I aired my complaint on the talk page. Now you have chosen to suppress this information on Neil deGrasse Tyson's talk page.

The wilful Wikipedia libel is becoming more blatant.HopDavid (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In December of 2018 you complained about something in an archive from October 2014. You sound surprised that nobody cares. In fact, that went as well as you could have expected. Nobody told you off for wasting people's time. People just shrugged their shoulders and moved on to matters that might actually be relevant.

Then you took it to the article's talk page where it was off topic as you were attacking Objective3000 rather than engaging in discussion about how to improve the article. I removed it but I did not give you a formal warning template for personal attacks. Instead I tried to point you in the right direction. Please do not assume that I will continue to do the same if you repeat this behaviour.

As far as I can tell you never actually reported Objective3000 in a place where it is appropriate to discuss the behaviour of another editor. I suspect that you are at least partially aware that this would be unlikely to go your way.

Maybe you should consider that nobody here is interested in your petty personal grudges (whether against Tyson, Objective3000 or anybody else) beyond the extent to which they are becoming noticeably disruptive to the encyclopaedia?

You can hold whatever opinions you like but if you can't put your grudges aside when you edit Wikipedia then I don't think this is going to work out for you. If you think Wikipedia is so bad then why not just go somewhere else?

--DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Splash and Bubbles

Thanks for dealing with that eel hater at Splash and Bubbles. I thought that user had learned to keep its opinion to itself by now. Don't know how long we'll put up with this person. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User AngloSaxonPride

Hi. I noticed that user AngloSaxonPride has been doing a fair amount of adding bogus middle names to pages and similar name-related not-especially-obvious vandalism. I noticed that you left a warning on that user's talk page, so I was wondering if you know what the next step is toward getting that user blocked (or whatever is the appropriate course of action). I am fairly new to wikipedia so I wasn't sure who to ask. Danstronger (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this

You warned an editor on this range earlier, I'm not sure if you've looked at the range.[1] Doug Weller talk 19:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a wider issue. I just looked at it as an individual IP. A quick glance at some of the other edits by that range make me think they are sort of similar but also sort of not quite the same. I might have another look a bit later. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Some stuff about the ContraPoints article

Hey! I re-edited the ContraPoints article adding a reference this time (I didn't know how to do it before). That should be fine I think. Another thing, I was thinking about adding a link to her Patreon on the "External Links" section and maybe some mention of her success on that platform on the "Career" section, using graphtreon dot com as a source. However, I'm pretty sure that site is not officially related to Patreon, it's an external data crunching site, but I would say it has enough credibility to mention some vague figures, something along the lines of "she has over 9,000 patrons and is among the top 20 patreons". Is this a good enough source? Thanks in advance! Nikko desu (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Using here own video as the reference is not ideal, as it is self published. I went looking for a better reference. (Some of the hateful stuff I stumbled over while searching was awful!) I didn't find anything usable. I guess it might come up next time a news outlet does a profile on her so I wouldn't write it off permanently but it doesn't look too promising for now. I'll leave it with the reference as it is but I would not be surprised if somebody else removes it.

I think it is best to avoid linking to Patreon. A link to Patreon is likely to be considered promotional. If her numbers on Patreon are notable enough to get reliable third party coverage then we can mention them but a quick search did not show up anything that looked like it would help. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I used her own video as source as there isn't really information about this anywhere else as you said, we know because she talked about it. I thought it would be fine as there is other data on this article that is sourced from tweets or from videos of hers, like reference number 1, which is her birthday and is sourced from a tweet from Contra herself, and reference 17, which is about her sexuality and is sourced from one of her videos. I've seen this happen in other articles about internet content creators, like in "Hbomberguy" which, by the way, is linked on Contra's article. In my opinion, in the case of internet personalities if we want to document them on Wikipedia we kinda have to accept that this is gonna happen, but that's just my two cents on it.

About the Patreon thing, I got the idea for the Patreon link from her article in Wikiquotes but I understand that it could be seen as promotional so I won't link it. On the note of her Patreon stats I was talking specifically about this site, which states that she is currently the number 16 top Patreon in terms of number of patrons. I'm skeptical myself of using third party sites not officially affiliated with the platforms we're talking about but in this case I thought it might be fine since the patron number is public for everyone anyways, this site just let's us see everyone in a big list. And I do think this figure is relevant, that's a lot of money she's making for a kind of niche content and while being a transgender woman and all that so I thought it might be important. What do you think?

PD: Quick follow up note that I added after sending that, there's mention of her being in the top 20 Patreon creators in this article but to be honest, I'm pretty sure they're using the site I told you about. Still, if you'd rather use a profiling article like this the message is still pretty much what I intended. Nikko desu (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That Vice link is good. If you use that it should be OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment about a couple of your recent edit summaries...

Hi DanielRigal. I'm DaneGeld. I wanted to talk to you about a couple of your recent edit summaries, which contained what I consider to be personal comments directed at editors. I don't know if you're aware, but leaving personal remarks for editors in edit summaries, breaks one of Wikipedia's five pillars concerning treating people with respect and civility. Telling people as you recently have done to "Maybe go and shout at some pigeons?" (as directed to Martinevans123) or "If you have aproblem with that video then go and whinge in the YouTube comments like everybody else." (as directed to the IP user editing from 150.143.216.210) really isn't very nice. Putting comments like this in edit summaries generally isn't allowed. Comment on the behaviour, but please don't make it personal! It would be good if you could avoid doing it in future! Thanks, Dane|Geld 07:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I only do this for obvious intentional trolls, astroturfers and the like. These are people who clearly already know that they are doing something wrong, are doing wrong intentionally and who clearly don't respect Wikipedia at all.

The "whinge on YouTube" comment related to very obvious large and organised brigading action to downvote a YouTube video which had the audacity to be called "Stop normalising Nazis". The person trying to add the content was clearly part of that brigade. They were attempting to report on their own group's actions in a blatantly propagandistic way. The "shout at pigeons" comment was a pretty mild dig at somebody who was ranting way off-topic about politics utterly unrelated to the article, and who clearly knew this and didn't care where they vented. In both cases, I used these mildly sarcastic comments as way to make it clear that I knew what was going on and to discourage more of the same. I've seen far, far worse, even from administrators. I do take care not to take the same tone with people who are getting stuff wrong in good faith and I do always try to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever it is unclear whether they are acting in good faith or not.

Generally, a bit of mild sarcasm from me indicates that somebody got off lightly. They got a sarky comment instead of the official warning template which they probably deserved and probably would have got if I was in a less jovial mood or if anybody else had got there first.

If there is a consensus that I should dial it back then I will but that just means more warning templates instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification about an edit

There are none so blind...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit —which you've described as «egregiously POV»— is an attempt to purge that article from its flagrant contradiction with several Wikipedia's policies concerning WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have argued about this in the talk page, but none of the users there have been able to counter what I have highlighted there; not even you, who was active in that discussion. One of the users involved used their recurrent WP:DROPTHESTICK to actually ignore my arguments and the site's policies. That is not consensus. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC) You can claim what you like. You posted an obviously bad edit with a dishonest edit summary. The only person who seems to agree with your interpretation of the policies is yourself. The person who reverted your bad edit was far more generous than I would have been and hence you are not facing a topic ban or another block at this time. You can take that undeserved good luck as a warning to be more careful or you can keep on pushing your luck until it runs out. I don't say that to goad or annoy you. I say that in the genuine hope that you will have a rethink and maybe go and edit some other articles where you can actually be a net positive for Wikipedia instead of being a drain on its resources. It is your choice. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC) You're taking this way too personal, this is a piece of text you left in my user talk page: «You need to either drop the stick or, if you prefer, you can take the stick home with you and wave it about somewhere else». That is totally out of place. My edit was not dishonest and stop attributing me intentions that I don't have. My commitment in this encyclopedia is to contribute with my knowledge and neutrality where I can. I gave plenty of time (more than two weeks in which the article was in full protection) for my claims in the talk page to be responded and nobody did, despite the section title «Racist and homophobic abuse from Steven Crowder» is an egregious POV fork, and the terms «racist» and «homophobic» are disproved by WP:RACIST, specially in the case of feuds like the one treated by that article. It's not a matter of consensus, the article violates neutrality policies and needs to be changed. Besides, an inappropriate use of WP:DROPTHESTICK by one of the users when there's argumentation and discussion to be done is not a consensus in any form. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC) You are deep into WP:IDHT territory and I do not propose to waste any more time arguing. I don't want your contrition or anything. I just want to to stop disrupting Wikipedia. If you behave sensibly from now on then that is fine. If not, and it comes to my attention, then you won't get any more nice personal messages from me. It will just be warning templates or reports on the appropriate messageboards. It is your choice. Maybe go and edit some articles about non-political subjects? Surely you must have some other interests? You edited some other articles earlier in the year. Maybe try that again? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Why you consider me in WP:IDHT instead of those who refuse and even actively prevent any modification to that article despite it violates several Wikipedia policies (which I've mentioned)? And it's not me the only user who tries to fix this issue, other have also tried to modify that article encountering the unjustified resistance from the same specific users ([2]; [3]), who are also actively preventing any change in other articles also related to politics. I really don't want to venture into conflict, but could this be a case of gaming the system? My set of theories about this behavior is running out. Also, under what authority do you suggest me to stop editing about political topics? If you want to know, I'll tell you that I wasn't interested in political articles in first place; but I realized that a lot of subjects, specially those related to current political issues and figures, are in an incredible biased state and nobody do anything, seemingly. My objective is not to bias those articles in any other way, but cleanse them from opinionated editing and make them as neutral and fact-based as I can, which is what Wikipedia stands upon as an encyclopedia after all. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC) To answer the one legitimate question buried in there: under what authority do you suggest me to stop editing about political topics?. I have no personal authority here. I am suggesting that if you continue to be a drain on our resources, offering nothing in return, then I would support anybody who reported you to the appropriate noticeboards suggesting a topic ban or a long (or even indefinite) block. I am also suggesting that if you continue to edit contrary to policy that this is very likely to happen. I am also suggesting that I might be prepared to make such a report myself, if you make yourself enough of a nuisance. Either way, the outcome would be a community decision, not based on any personal authority of mine and you would have a chance to defend yourself. Your recent edit to Pepe the Frog (which was reverted by somebody else) was a perfect example of you openly gaming the system. You spotted a piece of true and accurate content, which you objected to for whatever personal reason, and you spotted that it was improperly referenced. Instead of referencing it correctly, or putting a Citation Needed tag on it requesting somebody else to do so, you removed the content entirely. You used the poor referencing as an excuse to remove it. This is exactly the sort of thing that is going to get you reported if you don't stop it. You can dress this up in the language of neutrality if you like but we have seen people citing policies in a superficial attempt to appear to be operating within the rules and objectives of Wikipedia many times before. Nobody is going to be fooled because your actual behaviour speaks for itself. It is time for you to stop. Still, I guess I should thank you for something. You made me look into referencing that statement about Pepe the Frog correctly and in doing so you make me discover that the article had not been updated to cover the recent Infowars lawsuit. I've fixed that, so least you can say that you played had a (very tangential) part in (very slightly) improving Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Why is this bad faith against me? The edit that I made in the Pepe the Frog article was totally justified and I made it clear in the edit description. It was a dead link to a YouTube video, that is, an unreliable link to an unreliable source; although I justified it wrongly in the aforesaid edit description from that article: I was actually referring to the list of perennial sources, for the account. You've described my latest activity as biased and «dress [...] up in the language of neutrality», but all the edits I've made so far have been in pro of neutrality. I have used neutrality as a justification because I mean it. The fact that a group of users are insisting in keeping extremely biased content in certain politic-related articles doesn't signify that they have a legitimacy in doing so. They are acting against core Wikipedia's policies and, as this essay about sham consensus declares, any consensus «in violation of an ArbCom decision, a policy, or a guideline» is «a false consensus or a wrongful consensus, or both». Back to the Pepe the Frog article, you even recognize that my edit was correct after all, and since the broken link to YouTube isn't back (yet), I assume the same. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC) You see consensus where there is none. You see me conceding your point when I did nothing of the sort. You appear to have no understanding of neutrality at all. I don't know whether you make your points in good faith, and I'll admit that I have my doubts about that, but it doesn't really matter. This is about how you behave when editing articles not the content of your soul. This is not about you. It is about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I see that you are still trying to ram an edit you have absolutely no consensus for in to the Carlos Maza bio. I have tried to guide you away from this path but it hasn't worked and I have to give up. I'm sorry but this is where the discussion on this page has to end. It is warning templates from now on. That's not what I had wanted but there is no other choice. I've given you a final warning rather than going straight to the noticeboards but this really is the final kindness I can show in this matter. I doubt that you will be able to adjust your behaviour in order to remain on Wikipedia but you still have a chance to prove me wrong about that. Please take it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC) This is the last comment I intend to leave in your page talk. What you said is strange because I didn't imply you were conceding me a point or anything in that line, rather the contrary. Also, I perfectly understand neutrality (I haven't scrutinized the guideline for nothing); speaking of which, do you consider that the current bio of Carlos Maza, specially the title of the section about his feud with Steven Crowder, is neutral and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies? Those same policies that you claim to defend? That article piece presents right now serious violations of WP:RACIST, WP:POVSPLIT and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, among others; in case you didn't notice. Those violations are being reinserted over and over by a group of 4 users (which are pushing biased POVs in other articles as well, but those issues don't belong here). I suggest you to check the talk page of the article and note how the aforementioned users fail to debate against the changes I want to introduce and, as far as I pointed the policy violations, they went mute; one of them recurring to WP:DROPSTICK. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered,

as it was being removed, your month old comment at Nazi Party about not keeping a running list of the editors who claim that the Party was a leftist one. That was my doing and your well reasoned post has convinced me to not continue that approach. I just though you might like to know. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Rachel McKinnon Vandalism

Hi,

the IP address that vandalised the wikipage for Rachel McKinnon belongs to the twitter user Skepticat_UK. The account has been suspended, but in screencapped tweets (https://twitter.com/buttonsandfluff/status/1168108793307287553?s=21) they admit to being the vandal, and say that they deliberately didn't use their account to make the edits. They also made a whole blog post about it (http://archive.is/MbUSU).

Obviously, all this does is indicate that this person has a wikipedia account and deliberately didn't use it, but if they do have an account, I presume it would make sense, if possible, to apply the warning to their account, as well as/instead of their IP. Sorry if this is useless. I prefer to just stick to my occasional edits, but I figured I'd pass on this information to someone more knowledgeable just in case it's useful in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesspumpkin (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth drawing an administrator's attention to this. They will be able to cross-reference the IP with accounts that have used it and might be able to identify the user. In my view, warnings to IPs are warnings to the people behind them. So if somebody has been warned on one IP then it is reasonable to count that warning against any other IPs and accounts used by the same person provided we are confident that they actually saw the warning. In my view it would be good to track down the main account and give them a final warning against both vandalism and against editing Wikipedia while drunk. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain twinkle

I noticed that you used Twinkle when reverting on TERF. I have read the documentation, but still don't understand what it does. What are the results of a revert when you TW it? I really don't understand what it does. Thank you and thanks for reverting that "troll". I checked out their contributions and see that they have an anti trans fixation and agenda. I normally don't bother with contribs, but they spiked my curiosity.You are more than welcome to check mine. I have made mistakes, and admittedly have a POV. I am a social/cultural progressive with deep conservative roots. Creates some cognitive dissonance, with which I struggleOldperson (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle is a thing you can enable in the user settings. It puts some extra options on the menus for warning, welcoming and reporting users and for nominating pages for deletion or protection. It is all stuff you can do manually, it just makes those things easier to do. It also gives some "rollback" options when you view the latest diff. That saves a little time but it is not greatly different from using the "undo" option except that it automatically takes you to the user's Talk page afterwards. I find it pretty useful. You just have to be a bit careful as you can rollback edits with a single click so it would be possible to rollback the wrong thing by accident. Of course, that is not the end of the world, so long as you realise the mistake, as you can undo or rollback your own change to get back to where you were before. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. If you check my user page and consider that I am 80 years of age,and only semi literate(and virtually illiterate in html or php.not sure what is the diff. I somewhat understand you. But when you use TW to revert is the option you choose private, or is it made known to the editor reverted? And what "rollback options are available? BTW I know that age is not an excuse for computer illiteracy, that there are 3 years olds that can code,and 90 years old that slam their way around like a greased pig in a chute. I simply was occupied with (to me) more important things in life, until lately and it has took me some time to get as far as I have gotten on WP. There was a time that I thought choosing publish from sandbox would move the article to main space. then againI had no idea that there was a main space, much less a draft space.. I'm still learning, not only the techniques, but the WP culture. And it is a culture even hierarchical. I recently learned that even a "privileged"member of the hierarchy (admins) can fall afoul of the powers to be, and that there is a layer above Admins called Bureaucrats,and most certainly a layer above that,perhaps Jimbo and his associates. I just found it interesting that an admin (Fram)could be banned sans explanation. That arouses the curiosity. Oldperson (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

British Diaspora

Please discuss changes in the talk pages of an article before proceeding to make uncited changes, thank you 49.198.44.248 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Says the person inserting unreferenced material with borderline racist overtones? Just because you know a bit of the Wikipedia lingo doesn't mean that you are actually aligned with the objectives of our project. You need to back down here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul Kastel

FYI Checkuser is in process over at SPI on this. Thanks for your supportive comments.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

SonicFox page Edit

Pointless kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can I understand how my edit was counted as "Vandalism"? I didn't purposefully ruin a web page , I just corrected the pronouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1621:FF9C:2153:C5DE:D0AD:66A7 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Enough! We will not tolerate deliberate misgendering and trolling. Do not do it again! --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Keep it down with the harsh tone. All I did was ask you a simple question, do not reply with anger. I asked why is it vandalism? You can say misgendering is counted as vandalism. You don't need to act that way. And no that wasn't "trolling", I just didn't know that Wikipedia allows people to choose their own gender too, since articles need to be correct, both scientifically and grammatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1621:FF9C:2153:C5DE:D0AD:66A7 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC) You know perfectly well what you are doing. You know perfectly well that deliberate misgendering is an offensive form of trolling, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else. If you keep it up you can expect further warnings and then, if you persist, being blocked from editing. It is time to stop arguing. Either go and edit some other article in a constructive way or just walk away from Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Just because you know something doesn't mean that everyone knows it too. Cultural differences exist. As I said before, you don't have to reply in an angry tone. If you would've just said it simply "misgendering is not allowed" I would've apologized for it since I wasn't aware of it. But now you're making it personal, and I've seen the way you reply to people, and it's not a professional way. You do you, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1621:FF9C:2153:C5DE:D0AD:66A7 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Professional? I would remind you that none of us are being paid to deal with this nonsense. Wikimedia is a charitable foundation and pretty much everybody here is a volunteer. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia and you are clearly not here to help. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC) "you are [] not here to help" is simply your opinion. I thank you for keeping an eye on Wikipedia voluntarily, but I am reminding you again that not everyone is a troll as you are assuming. Simple misconceptions or clashes happen, and I told you I wasn't aware of it. Stop being harsh, for the 3rd time. Do not assume people's intentions, as this can be as offensive as misgendering (as you said). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1621:FF9C:2153:C5DE:D0AD:66A7 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CNN

There were valid citations. If this is still considered opinion, then TOTALLY OK to remove "far-right" from Breitbart New's entry?— Preceding unsigned comment added by HangFire (talk • contribs)

No they weren't. Please read WP:RS. Also please read WP:POINT. If you have a problem with one article then discuss that on its talk page. You do not vandalise another article just to be disruptive. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fish fingers

When I checked the history, "fish planks" had been mentioned as a slang term even before the vandalism. Do you have any reason to doubt the sincerity of that or no? --Ipatrol (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

When I removed it, it was completely unreferenced, not mentioned anywhere else within the article and when I Google for the term I see nothing to suggest that it is widely used or, when it is used, that it even refers to the same product as fish fingers. The term was most recently introduced here by an obvious vandal, also adding the seemingly racist "Obama English" nonsense that we have seen before in various places, so there is no assumption of good faith to be made on those edits. I was not aware that it had been present before that but clearly somebody removed it. If you can find a good RS source saying that "fish planks" are a real product and really are the same thing as "fish fingers" then you can add it back in but I definitely have my doubts about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well DR. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Indenting and inserting

Since your comment was one indent under Blueboar's,I considered it obvious that it was a response to Blueboar's as if it were responding to mine it would have been indented further under mine.Since Blueboar was responding to something I had said above,I thought it better for the flow of dialogue without branching that mine come immediately after.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh,and it's collusion with the hiding of a person's birth name that is a "horrible thing".--12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Collusion? Protecting people from harassment is not collusion.

Now, I know what I am about to say might sound like hyperbole but I swear that it is not and I beg you to consider it seriously. I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. I do not know what has happened to make you so obsessed with trans people but I do not think that this is healthy either for you or for them. If you are looking up trans people on Kiwi Farms then you are associating with neo-Nazis and other criminals, maybe even terrorists. They have hounded at least one person to suicide. There is nothing good there, either for you or for anybody else. There are people who can help you before this spirals any further out of control. Please seek help from a qualified mental health professional! --DanielRigal (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: Blocked user 12.144.5.2 has attempted to contact me off-wiki. I have left a note for them on their Talk page making it clear that they must not attempt to do so again. They have deleted this (and all the other) messages from their Talk page but it remains in effect. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)