Archive 3
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)
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)
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)
I want you to stop this kind of nonsense immediately:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
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)
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)
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:
You deleted sourced material on the wikiepedia article for Haiti, your edit comment was "Rv - stop it, its not funny nor is it 'cuisine', if anything, the poorest of the poor resort to this.:.
If you disagree with sourced material, feel free to discuss it in the discussion, but you dont have the right to delete factually sourced material because you personally "dont like it". Haitian STEVE ( talk) 13:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps this might help you. Haitian STEVE ( talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for the note on my Talk page, and sorry for being such an idiot. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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 out HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
Archive 3
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)
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)
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)
I want you to stop this kind of nonsense immediately:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
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)
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)
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:
You deleted sourced material on the wikiepedia article for Haiti, your edit comment was "Rv - stop it, its not funny nor is it 'cuisine', if anything, the poorest of the poor resort to this.:.
If you disagree with sourced material, feel free to discuss it in the discussion, but you dont have the right to delete factually sourced material because you personally "dont like it". Haitian STEVE ( talk) 13:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps this might help you. Haitian STEVE ( talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for the note on my Talk page, and sorry for being such an idiot. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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 out HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
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))
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)