User talk:Dave Dial/Archive 3-Old

Archive 3

Deleted file

I had to delete your screenshot of the Amherst paper retraction. As @DHeyward: correctly pointed out on his talkpage, it was listed as an own work when the evidence indicates that you do not own the copyright to the image, and the publication does not seem to be compatible with GFDL or CC-BY-SA. It was hypocritical of you (and I) to link to an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work when admonishing DHeyward for doing essentially the same thing, so the image needed to go. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, ok, I guess. I am not really up in those kind of issues, and I was just trying to show the retraction since the Amherst website is hard to navigate. I(mistakenly apparently) believed a partial screen grab from a website was within copyright rules. My apologies. Although if I were an admin I may be more concerned with DHeyward's lack of understanding about our BLP policies and the definition of "unsubstantiated". Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to him about that too. I'm trying to de-escalate the whole situation, before he ends up with a topic ban. He makes some good edits and has good points frequently, so I don't want that to happen. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good to me. I much rather have a de-escalation than anything else. I have no problem with people making mistakes, we all do that. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For illustration, I didn't mind the image. Sometimes an image is necessary to make the point and it was made as I had not seen the retraction and it was not obvious from a link, so the image was an excellent solution if not within the letter of the rules. That is also the reasoning for WP:BLPTALK allowance of links to content that it is otherwise unsuitable or questionable as a reference on WP. It's subtle but important distinction. Intention is key and context is key (just like the response to copy vio depends). Avono's talk discussion was about how widespread coverage was, not whether that reference was usable for allegations. At some point, say, if Quinn sues, those same statements may be repeated in other journals to show what she is suing for - the precedent that linking to a site for a discussion, without actually repeating the allegation is chilling but not in a good way. I certainly understand the problem with the source. The retraction's characterization is nearly as problematic as the article (WP wouldn't use any of those words in the specific allegations, ours are much stronger). The retraction didn't even mention the TFYC stuff which some people see as objectionable as the other stuff. I understand the problem with content, I don't like seeing the link that Avono presented that showed Tarc intimidating another editor with it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I posted the screen grab because I was having a hard time navigating through their website and reading the retraction. So I did a "Prt Scr", saved the file and uploaded it so to show the wording of the retraction. But I do not agree the retraction, even if somewhat vulgar, is a problem. It just illustrates the problem. In any case, I don't want to delve further into GG land. I just wanted to state I believe Wordsmith acted appropriately and I support the TBan. I really don't know many of the editors involved here, and I sure don't want good editors blocked or banned. So I hope at this point we can move forward. No damage. Dave Dial (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Frankfurt School. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 09I500 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

I'm not sure it's the best idea to slander journalists like @Auerbachkeller: with accusations like "anti-feminist". Not only might that violate WP:BLP, I remember all the salt when David wrote that pretty good criticism of Wikipedia. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 02:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to tell you I never claimed that, but went back and read my post. I don't know his stance on feminism, but meant that people who have media access or are semi-famous have Jimbo's ear, and both are either pro-GG or anti-feminist. I think Metamagician is both, I have no idea what Auerbach's position on feminism is. So, you're right. Dave Dial (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue personal attacks, you will be blocked

I want you to stop this kind of nonsense immediately:

You are exactly right, and Auerbach and Mr.Magicmagician have Jimbo's ear. Both very much pro-GG ~~and~~or anti-~~woman~~feminism. Dave Dial (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of personal attack is outrageous not least because it is false. Mr. Auerbach is neither pro-GG nor anti-feminism. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to block me for having an opinion, Jimbo? I believe that it's true, and nothing you say or threaten me with is going to change it. Perhaps you should take a class on 'free speech' to coincide with the 'free speech activist' claim you make. Take some of the $500k you got from the UAE(a bastion of freedoms). Why don't you go back to trying to get more RTs on Twitter than David Cameron to show people how much you support a cause. In theory, but not practice. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that I am well aware of Wikipedias 'Freedom of speech' and Wikipedia is not. Which don't apply here since it was a comment in response to someone on your Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dave, a comment like that is still a personal attack, it cannot be construed as anything else. It is not a personal opinion, you are accusing them of being something that they're not. In this case @Jimbo Wales: is absolutely correct to warn you, like he says if it does continue then you will be blocked--5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ffs, bug off. People can claim to be anything they want to, and I can state actions speak louder than mere words. And I can believe those actions have certain people fall into certain categories. I was not hounding anyone, just stating my opinion. This is now over 3 days old, so don't fucking warn me just to brandish your admin status on my Talk page, while 'pinging' Jimbo just to earn your brownie points. Dave Dial (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Routine notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Isla Vista killings

DD2K, I haven't been working on this article much but the same editor insists on removing the LA Times reference that was revert, rereverted and rerereverted a few days ago. Could you take a look at this article? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yea it's stupid. The editor who makes the change(Hondo77) takes out a reference in that section that shouldn't be removed. Then as the reference isn't being used anymore, it leaves an error message on the page, so the editor Unbuttered Parsnip removes the reference entirely. But, as there is already an LA Times reference being used we should probably just leave it as it is now. Here are both references. 7 Dead in drive-by shooting and Isla Vista shooting suspect targeted sorority, neighbors, strangers. Both basically give the same information, if someone finds a need for the removed reference that the remaining references don't supply, I would add it back in. Otherwise, it's not worth the continuing circle of remove, remove, re-add. Thanks for the note and the watchful eye. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you were right that having the ref is better and no reason to remove it initially(by Hondo77). Unbuttered Parsnip must patrol some Ref-Error page that alerts editors of ref errors. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

TBSchemer has begun a discussion concerning the discussion on the Democratic Party talk page at the Administrators' noticeboard (here). I'm pretty sure he's required to inform you of this. I'm not involved, but I still thought you'd like to know. AlexanderLevian (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the editor informed me, but I removed the silliness from my page. I am sort of busy in RL right now, or I would put together some diffs for the thread. It seems to me that the accusations being thrown around can be seen as false and I shouldn't have to, and the editor should be boomerranged. Thanks for the note though. Dave Dial (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I don't need or want your advice; yuu want to support someone who accuses me of condoning rape, that's your problem. Take me to any noticeboard you like. Dreadstar ☥ 01:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are attacking me, and making that same accusation against Mark for the 4th or 5th time? Which can definitely be construed as a personal attack. I've not seen anywhere that Mark has accused you of "condoning rape", and yet you've repeated that claim over and over. Is there something wrong with you, perhaps a hitch in the old giddy-up? Dave Dial (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attack on you here, but play it as you will. As for accusing me of condoing rape, I think it's clear from this comment by MB: "which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters". If you can't see it then too bad for you. You don't like my interpretation, then ask MB to explain and apologize, or you can take the issue to a NB. I'm done with you. Dreadstar ☥ 02:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, guy. That is obviously not an accusation of condoning rape. Obviously not. The fact you took it that way is hard to understand. I don't believe anyone else would see it that way. But carry on. I'll decide on what I want to do next either tomorrow or Tuesday. I'm busy tonight. Dave Dial (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I do apologize, I didn't look at the other parts edited just the part that was not supported by the source so I undid the whole thing.--Hashi0707 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oldnewnew

Hi Dave, I've respected your edits on WP for awhile on a number of topics, and given that you somewhat involved yourself with what is going on on Talk:Barack Obama, I wanted your advice on what to do or to ask you to make a report on the noticeboard. I'm really not familiar with how to go about that process. Oldnewnew has left a message on my talk page that shows he/she hasn't learned anything and is going to continue with the WP:POINT behavior. The user outright admits to carrying out a campaign of edits that they disagree with, yet has not stopped doing so (as can be seen from their user contributions). There is a denial of violating WP:POINT, while admitting to the exact text of that page. Despite any denial, I can see no reason for launching a campaign of edits on multiple articles that, as far as I can tell, the editor in question had no previous connection, admitting to edits that they disagree with, other than to draw the attention of other editors or to throw a tantrum (apologies in advance if that is overly strong language). I don't know where to go about reporting this or how to do it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @OuroborosCobra:, and thanks, I have the same respect. What I would do is ignore the editor for now, unless or until they start making those pointy edits again. Even though it does seem as though they have not learned, that type of behavior will end up making an editing career short. Keep up the good work! Dave Dial (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From you, yesterday: "And I'm going to ask you once again to move your comment from my oppose vote, before I remove it. The discussion thread is for discussion, the survey are for the voting. As described in the instructions here." [1] Calidum T|C 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DD2K reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on the Clinton move discussion, and add your comment where it belongs. You're already over WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked before and was told that editors can respond to !votes, and that I had no right to remove another editors comment. There are several comments from Supporters in the Oppose section, as well as in the Neutral section. My comment should stay and it's incredulous that it keeps being removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my !vote at the above-referenced AN/I discussion, please don't take it personally. If you note, I voted VERY conservatively and only for the first part of #1. The rest of it was BS and completely over-the-top. The reason why I voted to support the first part of #1 was because you have already made your feelings about the HRC move known numerous times as the discussion. It's my opinion that to do so further could raise more bad faith among those not in agreement with you in addition to add more fuel to the fire that surrounded the edit warring report filed. More importantly (and please take this with the best of intentions behind it), because of the edit warring that ensued, I think you might be doing yourself a favor to be removed from the discussion -- in order to stay out of trouble. Would hate to see you blocked, it's simply not worth it. Best,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well @Winkelvi:, I'm definitely not going to hold a grudge or anything. I do appreciate what you are saying, and I could have been blocked for edit warring and couldn't complain. Even though I believed I was right, I obviously know it's no excuse. But to dignify that ANI filing with a vote is something I don't believe is justified. I mean, the accusations are ridiculous and there is no way that any admin should block me or ban me from that process. Any more than they should block or ban the proposers for cherry picking the data and dates from their proposals. It's just absurd. But I'm not holding a grudge, and will try and tone it down. Take care.(Also @Blackmane:, thanks for the notification.) Dave Dial (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Blackmane (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Dear Dave, I've deconstructed your newspaper search - again. Please don't take this personally. I don't feel too strong about the result of the RM (although I do prefer the short version), and I certainly don't want to pick on you. This latest error was something that can easily happen, and could have happened to me, too. Indeed, when I first tried my queries, I put a space between the "-" and the search term ("Hillary Rodham Clinton" - "Hillary Clinton" site:news.google.com/newspapers), and got only 5540 hits (which would have made a very strong case for the move). Luckily, I found the error before I hit "save page" - that wrong result has a certain "smell" that made me double-check. These issues are subtle, and easy to get wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: I've responded on the RM page. But just to reiterate my explanation there, I did the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" comparative "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham search on purpose, and my reason being that I'm not trying to claim that HRC is never referred to as HC. She is. But in many sources it's for brevity and only in the headlines. Sometimes they use both, but in most sources, the vast majority, from 1983-2003, she is referred to as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Thanks for the polite inquiry. Dave Dial (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry to assume a mistake when you did it on purpose. I thing we already exchanged our different interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME. Anyways, have a good weekend - it's past midnight here in Old Europe, and I'll try to turn in for tonight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Stephan Schulz:, you have a good weekend too. I have friends in 'Old Europe', specifically in Germany. I also do ancestry research and large portions of my family are from Germany. Good night. Dave Dial (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt School

Just letting you know that user causing trouble on the Frankfurt School talk page has deleted your comment. --Jobrot (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing not to fight over the comment, but honestly, if you really believe I'm someone's sock puppet (though I can't imagine whose) and acting in bad faith, please either argue with the points I've made or report me. I've done nothing wrong here by wiki standards or really any standards. If you want to help with the page, I hope we can work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

She'll always been known as such to those who are actually knowledgeable in this area, but really, the battle has been lost; the RM finding kinda gives the "HC" crowd the leg up on dropping Rodham from the infobox and other places in the article. You know how I love to fight more than any around here, but the sooner we can get the RM Zealots to shimmy on down to their next centre/center aluminum/aluminium fight, the better. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you're right. I told myself to just let the fanatics have their uneducated 'win', move on and not fight about this absolutely silly stuff. It doesn't really matter anywho. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

This user does not understand references

DD2K has deleted numerous edits with the comment "Rv - Once again, indymundi.com is not a reliable source, niether is YouTube, CIA Factbook doesn't state that, it's original research .".

The CIA world factbook is a reliable reference and is used on thousands of "good" wikipedia articles, please educate yourself on the subject of references before acting. Haitian STEVE (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H....yes, the CIA World Factbook is a reliable source, but it does not state what you are saying it does. You are extrapolating data and making your own conclusions. Sheesh.... And Indexmundi.com is NOT a reliable source. I'm not going to keep fighting about this, and let others take care of this. I really don't give a fuck. Dave Dial (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haitiscreens.PNG

Highlighted image for the reading impaired

Perhaps this might help you. Haitian STEVE (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Viola Davis edits

Hello Dave,

As you can see, (and I could have predicted), your removal of my sources has allowed other editors to replace the phrase "African American" with "black" again. I would appreciate if you would restore the sources I provided and resolve this situation once and for all. Otherwise, this silly tennis match is likely to continue ad infinitum - and ad nauseum. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues, we will have more discussions on the Talk page to sort it out. It isn't that much of an issue. When everyone is 'right', nobody is wrong. I believe the new wording might be a better compromise. We will see. Dave Dial (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

Thanks for the note on my Talk page, and sorry for being such an idiot. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, Hoss. I would have fixed it but didn't want the appearance of edit warring. Someone else took care of it though, so no worries. Dave Dial (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Waters talk

Why then do you apparently not have a problem with the following:

"There have been almost no accusations of antisemitism, when you are taking his whole life and the accumulation of reliably sourced material about Waters into account. Add that to the fact that the ADL has stated that Waters is not anti-Semitic(although they wish he wouldn't use the Star of David to represent Israel), the material that is already in the article(without the AS heading) is more than enough."

I've been around Wiki long enough to know that left wing zealots selectively quote Wiki regs. My comment was intended to point out that there is at least a prima facie argument to include a section on the subject's alleged anti-Semitism. I thought my comment and quote from the Hamas charter gave weight to that opinion without having to explicitly point such outHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was addressing the subject of the article and the particular sources. You were spouting off your own personal views and stating your agenda. If you've been on Wiki long enough, you should know better. Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were invoking the ADL as an apparent authority on such matters (though the quote was only in regard to this particular incident, the inflatable pig and the Star of David; I don't know what the ADL's general opinion is regarding the subject) to make your point, while I was quoting the Hamas charter as my authority to make mine. I would not have made any comment were it not for your own.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the edits for the article had the ADL quote in it. That is what we call discussing sources and ways to improve the article. There is no mention of Hamas or their charter. That's you bringing up some bullshit that has nothing to do with Waters or the events. This is the last response I am going to make regarding this issue. Any further discussion should take place on the article Talk page, or if you persist in disputing the project, ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi DD2K. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))[reply]

Why the Reversions on Bell County?

For some reason you reverted my edit on Bell County wherein I removed an unsourced misleading statement which seems to indicate that Gov Bush adopted a new restriction on gun-carrying by requiring a CHL for it. That is contrary to the fact. After the Luby shooting, Texas adopted a new law ALLOWING CHL, eliminating an old ban on carrying guns. This was my correction to a misleading paragraph, properly sourced. Kindly do not edit war over an obvious reliable correction. The insertion of the false implication about Luby leading to gun-restriction law into the Bell County article is consistent with a prejudiced attempt to oppose guns -- the entire paragraph is speculative and tangential to the article on Bell County. Beware of agenda-pushing on Wikipedia. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@EnochBethany:Because that's not the only change you made. I reverted your personal commentary, after seeing your other personal commentary on the Executive Order 13603 article. Which I also reverted. The edits you made there were also a BLP violation. Do not do that again. Dave Dial (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC "archive"

Hi DD, regarding this edit: while there may have been another reason to revert the change, "do not alter archives" is not one. By convention, FACs (and several other review types) include /archiveX in their titles - but they are still active discussions. Truly archived reviews look like this. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind. Though I'll probably fail since it probably won't come up for me for a long time, and I'm old. Dave Dial (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Let me also add, those are the type of edits that should be reverted of a banned user. So if in fact JTV is CH, I was wrong to make that revert in an ongoing discussion and have no problem with another editor re-reverting me. Dave Dial (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As the blocked user has apparently shared evidence to the contrary with Arbcom, I figured we would wait to see the outcome of that before deciding what should be done with the FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I saw that. Even though I think Mike is probably right almost all the time, best to wait till ArbCom confirms. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers at WP:ARC

Hi Dave. This request isn't binding (though it may be in the future, if a procedure change goes through), but could you make it just a bit simpler on the clerks and use simply "Statement by DD2K" as your section header on arbitration case requests? Just saves us a bit of time at opening (if we follow a recently-added procedure where preliminary statements are automatically added to evidence), and it does add up when you use "Statement by DD2K/Dave Dial" every single time you participate. Again, not a binding request, but would be highly appreciated. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done. I was formatting it that way because my sig and username doesn't match. One of these days I'll get around to changing my username. Dave Dial (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]