User talk:David A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk Archive 1


I've now closed two of your RfCs in the past week, both of which have been partially or entirely unfit for the venue. As I've said twice now, please review guidance at WP:RFC, and please adjust your editing accordingly. Failure to do so may be interpreted as being somewhat disruptive. TimothyJosephWood 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I previously started all 3 my RFCs at the same time, before your reprimand. David A (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I worded that a bit too harshly. Sorry about that. Just in case you're not aware, a big part of the way that RfCs work is that we have a bot that posts them to the talk pages of manymany editors. So they can consume a heckuva lot of time, and before they're opened, the debate is generally expected to have boiled things down to a very concise question that most participants can evaulate and weigh in on in a few or several minutes. So some pretty good examples of current RfCs would be:
  • Should the Calendar article say there are three principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic) or six principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars)?
  • Should the article state that Stalin was a "dictator", without qualification, in the opening paragraph of the lead?
  • Has Spicer's resignation as Press Secretary taken effect with Sanders succeeding him from July 21?
Looking at a lot of the things you posted on Talk:Immigration to Sweden, often the best course of action is to WP:BEBOLD, use your best editorial judgement, and incorporate things you feel will improve the article. A lot of the time no one will take any issue with it, and when they do then that's the time to discuss things on the talk page, and either reach a local consensus, or try to narrow the disagreement to the point where it will fit neatly into something like an RfC.
Again, sorry if I came off to harshly. If I can be of any help feel free to post a note on my talk. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem at all. I am used to being outright insulted if I present these statistics to the wrong person. You have been perfectly cordial.
I have problems with sifting information, focusing properly on pieces of text longer than regular news articles, writing in an appropriate academic style, and finding enough time to do so, which is why I have been asking for help. I am better suited to managing my very popular entertainment wiki than a proper encyclopedia. David A (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


Then maybe you should (there is no polite way of saying this really) try and read the page. Hell you practically quote what we already have word for word.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have noticed that VolunteerMarek has a history of removing references that he disagrees with, and the justifications for his edit were not that the information was mentioned elsewhere, it was that he considered the sources as unreliable, even though Wikipedia does not. David A (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but that does not excuse not bothering to read the page before reverting another editor (even by cut and paste). Now to be fair the materiel had been added back only just before your additional addition. Again (in fairness) this was an edit war and got a bit confused.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have read the page previously, but cannot be expected to remember everything several konths afterwards. David A (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It was added here [1] (today). By the way, yes you should read a page if you are going to edit it, it avoids making errors. It also avoids making it look like you are as bad as those you critise for just making thoughtless errors based upon personal preference.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
More like taking the editor at his word of deliberately trying to remove content that he disagrees with. That does not remotely make me as bad as the censorship-squadron. David A (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Great so you took him at his word, that does not explain why you did not bother to check the edit history or read the page after a number of edds opposed his removal. Yes (by the way) I do think that it is a bad to over labour a point as it is to try and remove it hence why I said "avoids making it look like you are as bad". But it is clear this is going nowhere so I shall drop it, and I shall ask you to next time please read an article before re-adding material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I will try to keep it in mind, but it is not so easy to check through every reference in a page every time that I notice a suspicious edit. David A (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

State a reason[edit]

Before doing a revert, please state your reason why

Because you appear to be a single-issue account, created solely for whitewashing information. David A (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


You seem like an interesting person. Hit me up with an e-mail if you would like to get to know me. I am Swedish too :) --Spannerjam (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but I do not wish to reveal my IP address to strangers. However, I would greatly appreciate help with inserting my long list of references with statistics about the situation in Sweden and elsewhere into different Wikipedia pages, if you are interested. I am very busy running one of the world's largest entertainment wikis, so I have regrettsbly not had the time. David A (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ta for the links. I knew half of them and made people aware. (Mostly via my blog.) Wish you luck, in and out of Sweden. Zezen (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zezen: Okay. Thanks. I have limited time, and am not sure where it is best to insert several of them, so help to do so would be appreciated. David A (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:David A/Important Fact Links[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:David A/Important Fact Links, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David A/Important Fact Links and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:David A/Important Fact Links during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Due weight[edit]

See here. You should realize that not every sourced info belong to WP pages, or maybe it belongs to page A, but "undue" on page B. For example, your edit here. One can reasonably argue that such info does not belong to this general page about immigration, because it is too specific. Something like a general statistics for a number of countries could be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you are correct, but I have very limited ability to filter information. It is one thing to read what should be done and another to actually be able to properly do it in practice on my own. David A (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This can be helped by simply using best secondary sources. For example, instead of using a lot of national newspaper publications, you could find books or scientific reviews on the subject X, whatever this could be, Immigration and Crime or Crime in Sweden. That is sssuming there are such books or reviews. In any event, you should really make an effort to summarize the sources in neutral and encyclopedic fashion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, aside from Massutmaning by Tino Sanandaji I don't think that there are any books about immigration and crime in Sweden, and that is self-published, so I have been told that it is not usable. I tried to find the infromation that was available, and summarise it. However, given my ADD I have a hard time focusing on longer texts, and given that I am ridiculously overworked, I do not have sufficient time available to thoroughly immerse myself in the subject. Even what I did here in the last 2 weeks took extreme effort on top of my regular workload. Hence, I am very dependent on collaboration and help. David A (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I checked your subpage, and it tells for example, that "according to the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO), there are thousands of Islamic terrorists in Sweden,[49][50] and it receives an average of 200 reports of planned terrorism every day" (that "200 number" - does it also include false reports, and if so how many? 99%?). There are many other claims that seem unusual or can not be included by themselves, without providing proper context. Unfortunately, I can not asses reliability of these Swedish sources and do not know the language. Given that, I can not be of much help here, sorry. You must edit cooperatively and find common language with other contributors who edit in the same subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not know. The article only says that SÄPO is so worried that they have made a public message about this. Thank you for the help in any case. I will try to find people to collaborate with. David A (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Many people around here have difficulties with properly summarizing sources and trying to remain neutral while having a strong personal opinion about something. This can be fixed by positively collaborating with others. I think only a few your edits were really bad (and correctly reverted by other contributors). Others could be viewed as improvement or fixed. Therefore I voted "oppose" at the ANI. Your fatal error was bringing your complaint about other users (who tried to improve the content!) to the ANI. This way you appeared as someone who not only has difficulty with editing and promotes certain POV, but also behaves confrontational and waste time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was behaving completely without common sense. I was extremely exhausted at the time, and couldn't think properly. David A (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sure. This is the reason not to edit the subject you strongly feel about or do not edit anything at all. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but now it is too late to do anything about the problems that I caused for myself. I will likely not be able to ever edit any articles about these topics again. David A (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
[2] - they are talking only about subjects covered by your topic ban (if they make the ban). You would be able to edit anything else, and this is almost everything because the subject for the topic ban is very narrow. However, given your words that you are very busy with another project, you might wish stop editing here at all. BTW, I could tell the same about myself... My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I will adjust my wording accordingly. David A (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
And I agree that if I am no longer allowed to help out at Wikipedia in areas that I think are important, I should preferably attempt to focus my attention elsewhere. David A (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we have already too many pages about video games. That is hardly anything important. And I understand this attitude completely. Most people need an area of intense interest to continue editing. I had several of them. My very best wishes (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Now, thinking about this and new German laws (from your subpage), my first reaction was disagreement. But after thinking what propaganda actually does with people including some historical examples, I tend to agree with the social site "censorship" by modern day German government and with US students who objected to free hate speech. An important clarification: no real censorship will be actually possible in US or Germany, unlike that in some other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not know. I think that severe censorship of free speech is very scary and prevents open rational discussion. My impression is that the German government does not simply wish to remove hate-speech, but all fact-based criticism of Islamism and mass-immigration. David A (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, limiting the freedom of expression by individual citizens is bad. I guess what they should be worry about is an intervention by another state through information space, especially when that another state has established nearly total internal censorship and controls its own media. That is what had happen in Ukraine (hence their prohibitions of Russsan media). That is what lies in the heart of interference in US. That is what had happen during preparation to Brexit and who knows in how many countries. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed about Russia. I am just extremely uncomfortable with that open honest discussion based on facts and statistics is on the verge of being criminalised.

That said, what I am most afraid of is that global warming is going to make much of the world uninhabitable, which combined with overpopulation is going to trigger global climate wars for living space, that make WWII look like a playground fight. David A (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits at talk pages asking for editing help[edit]

You have posted requests for help att a number of talk pages. RatatoskJones and I have started working our way through the one at Talk:Crime in Sweden. I think that you should first read our responses there and then apply them to the lists you have posted, pruning the lists as necessary. Opinion pieces, for instance, can be reliable sources for the author's opinion but not for statements of fact. You should also recheck what the sources say and then remove or rephrase the sentences that aren't supported by the sources. For example, when you write "Only 8% of all reported rapes in Sweden 2017 have been handled by the police." the source [3] doesn't support that, but it says that 8 % of the rapes that have been handled have been solved (if "handled" is the best translation of handlagts). Pruning the list to remove items that aren't supported by reliable sources would minimize unneccesary work for other editors that will want to help out. Sjö (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with you that this would be best. However, I was in a great hurry, since I do not know if I am allowed to make any talk page posts after the likely topic ban, and I am also very tired, as I already work around 9 hours a day taking care of my entertainment wiki, so I am on the verge of mental collapse from the situation on Wikipedia on top of that. David A (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I will try to check through the references that I may have misremembered or misunderstood later, if I am still allowed to respond. David A (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that you should ignore my suggestion above. Instead, take a refreshing pause doing things that you enjoy and that give you new energy. This is out of concern for you, because you have told us in your recent edits how stressed out and overworked you are. Sjö (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that you are correct. I would appreciate if you could browse through the references to see which ones that are reliable and useful to add though. David A (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I have been extremely exhausted and distracted during the past 2 weeks or so, so I have a hard time writing appropriate summaries, and knowing where to draw the line to avoid WP:SYNTH. David A (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

About topic ban[edit]

Hello David, I am here to inform you that you have been topic banned from all edits relating to Sweden, in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or Muslims, with modifications, for a period of six months, appealable in three months. This editing restriction has been logged here.

I hope you won't take this personally, as a topic ban is by no means punitive, but for the interest of yourself and other editors. There is a proposal in the same discussion that suggests modification to this ban which would allow you to ask questions about these topics on user talk pages, and I have implemented that proposal as well, with the advice that such comments should proceed with extreme caution (probably best to just stay clear of the topic for a while; topic ban does not affect your editing elsewhere on English Wikipedia). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you so much for not making the ban permanent. I will try my best to behave properly. David A (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, take care. Alex Shih (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, David. I hope this doesn't upset you, but I'm afraid I've protested against Alex Shih's close and removed it, because I believe it ignored the consensus of the discussion. Only one person had proposed that you should be able to ask questions on user talkpages. So the discussion is open again, and IMO you're not topic banned yet. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
Well, if you wish to remove that ability from me, feel free to do so. Just please don't ban me permanently. David A (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, David. The discussion will probably be closed again shortly. In the meanwhile, I have crossed out the contested section in my original comment. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I will try to not behave without common sense in the future. David A (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, David A. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up Immigration to Sweden[edit]


You have to have been active on Immigration to Sweden recently. I have suggested that we should do a major reorganization of the article and maybe remove some sections. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about this on the talk page.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but I am not allowed to comment about this subject. David A (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That's too bad! We are not many users active in this part of Wikipedia. I hope you liked the changes anyway!--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Character powers[edit]

I see you have good faith in your editors but I don't get why we should get bigger sections for them. Are they relevant for the character's arc? In cases like Allen Walker, powers like Cross Edge or Orbs are not mentioned since those powers aren't relevant for him. In Naruto Uzumaki, we only mention the powers he that actually become relevant form him, avoiding the Bijudama or Sasuke Uchiha's Kirin which are briefly used. If you still want to focus on powers, I suggest you to edit in the Dragon Ball wikia which covers every element of a character. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I still think that a brief summary section is relevant for the public interest in the character, but I suppose that there is nothing that I can do about it if you disagree. David A (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)