User talk:Dael4

Richard Alpert (aka Ram Dass) was a doctor doing research on LSD and ended up in a spiritual quest in India creating a book called "Be Here Now".[1]

References

  1. ^ [1]Be Here Now, Wikipedia

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously disappointed

Editing the Ohio gubernatorial elections 2018 and considering the RFC 1 third parties, Wikipedia has become very undemocratic. Basing inclusion on media coverage and financial backing and not on actual election results. Third party should be allowed regardless because they are on the ballot here. Make no mistake Wikipedia is used basically as a promotional tool by the Democrats and the Republicans and if they cannot include third parties then it proves the lack of democratic action therein Dael4 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I see the info on the Green Party candidate has now been included. Good on you for pushing against censorship, it's not easy defending unpopular or minority view points. keep up the good work. CanisLupisArctus (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! Hard to get beyond the lower level sockpuppets to someone really interested in a balanced perspective. Why only mainstream candidate allowed to post is beyond me. There is the 5% "rule" but they will not allow anything more then one sentence for others... it's sockpuppet heaven... Dael4 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, who is behind this? What are the implications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Technical_13/Scripts/ACEvoterStats Dael4 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Ongoing Thanks Onghai1929

Suspected sockpuppets

Both editors making same change to File:Official Portrait of President Donald Trump (cropped).jpg across many on en.wikipedia as well as in global contributions (fr in one case, vi in the other. Similar changes in official portraits for other persons on similar set of articles. Neither editor uses talk pages, or edits in any English prose -- only changing names of files, template parameters, or some dates or numbers. Neither seems aware or concerned that they are edit warring, and multiple accounts is a common tactic in edit wars. Possible coincidence but WP:DUCK...

No idea what the overall point of wanting these particular portraits, other than they just like them. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Dael4 (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime between Edits... looks like an assembly line coincidence. sockpuppets?

A) I think you'll need stronger evidence than that. B) If you want to report a case of sockpuppeting, please do so in the appropriate place: WP:SPI. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio 2018 election and Constance Gadell-Newton's photo

Hey Dael4, you've recently been edit warring over the photo of Gadell-Newton in Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018. It appears that several editors who were previously edit warring in Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018 have started to focus on the article about Ohio.

You should disengage from reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page. There is no consensus to apply the "5% rule" to Ohio's 2018 election, but there is also no consensus for Gadell-Newton's photo to be displayed in the infobox. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus is folks not reading the logic in the talk and the arguments I have presented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors There is no major party stipulation for the template! Dael4 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is sanity

No reason not to have picture. Really no reason. Vetted by our democratic system. She is a legal candidate. Stop aiding and abetting non-democtatic actions. Wikipedia is a step beyond. What's your reasoning behind no photo please? @elephanthunter ?

as of 07-26 no reply Anticitizen 98 

Dael4 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded When a bunch of people gang up on one party in undemocratic fashion then the warring stipulation should be put on them. I am one against many Dael4 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Dael4 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded When a bunch of people gang up on one party in undemocratic fashion then the warring stipulation should be put on them. I am one against many Dael4 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Dael4 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Dael4 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to just keep this discussion together at WP:ANEW, instead of rehashing it on this page as well. Unless you have a specific question that you need help with? Bradv 02:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dael4: For what it's worth, the right way to clarify or change consensus on how many parties should be in represented in the infobox is by way of an RFC, or at least some well-reasoned commentary on the article talk page. Edit warring and accusing other editors of bias or discrimination is pretty much the worst way to make your point. Your position may have some value, and this could be a conversation worth having, but not like this. Bradv 03:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: I The warring are those who refuse to allow democracy to rule in wikipedia and the state of Ohio and moving wikipedia to a new standard of allowing other parties to exist. Sounds simple right? This runs against the old "duopoly" canard. I really resent the stigma as one who is "Edit Warring" when no discussion is made in talk and I have contributed much logical debate. The warring is not from me. I stand against the myopic sense of conventionalism not one who treads lightly. Too many are against other new candidates. It's time. Dael4 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:EW carefully. If you still don't understand how you were edit warring, read WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Bradv 03:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dael4 was definitely edit warring. But to be fair, some of these users were causing issues and engaging in edit warring in other articles, and (for the most part) ignoring talk page discussion. Just because there isn't an opposing army of reverting editors doesn't necessarily mean there is WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY (although it's honestly a good indication.) --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One word, democracy

You cannot deny the fact that these many are against putting up this person who is allowed by the state. Wikipedia is for inclusion. We are being excluded. The conventional arguments fall short of the spirit of Wikipedia as an it inclusive, not exclusive venue. We are here, we should be included. We post an argument against the status quo and the defense of exclusion is ultimately superficially presented. Thanks @elephanthunter for a glimmer of possibility. Dael4 (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Look, I happen to agree that the infobox for this article should include all the candidates, but your tactics are detrimental to your cause. Bradv 05:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When things get hot in the kitchen? My tactics are not laissez faire. I have been doing this for months now. Call me intractable or "anti-social" or whatever you want. I have spent more time on this than I would like but I am a principled person who has values and have an interest in "my" democracy. The point remains that I have tried to talk, explain, and for what? To be called an upstart who stirs up trouble. Far from it. People sometimes just don't get it. You can't put a gallon in a pint jug. Just not going to happen. Dael4 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you think your tactics are fine? Are they working? Bradv 06:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been and still with great arguments, that are basically misunderstood by conventional thought here. I stand against a callous tribe... I mean really read this in your quote about :Wikipedia is not a democracy|Wikipedia is not censored. Dael4 (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain these things to you and you're just not getting it. If you find yourself on the wrong side of consensus, you need to either stop or find a way to change consensus. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored has nothing at all to do with this. The bigger problem is that you are edit warring and insulting other editors, and you are completely unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say. Here's another page for you to read and self-reflect: WP:CIR, especially the third point under the first heading. Bradv 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Bradv Even wikipedia states the consensus is not the be all and end all so that argument only holds so much waeight. I do appreciate your effort to enlighten me but I am not an "idiot". All this is to enlighten me since I am a noob and all that? I have been around the block a few times and the country and elsewhere. I know all about wikipedia "Culture". I am not here to mollify the community sir. It is not my "life". I expect a certain amount of basic human respect which few so far have offered. Collaboration is two sided. Everyone has a mirror but do they ever really look into it? Dael4 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your unexplained edit to WP:AN3 has been reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Thanks!? it is self explanatory. What do you need to know? Why did you remove my comment sir? Dael4 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@drkay David Biddulph https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=David_Biddulph&users=Kart2401real&users=M%C3%A9lencron&users=4idaho&users=alsee&users=Over9000edits&users=Nevermore27&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwikiThis guy pops up outta nowhere and deletes my edit on edit warring notice board?? Dael4 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=tryptofish&users=black_kite&users=331dot&users=DrKay&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Dael4 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dael4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason you were blocked. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AN3 is not a forum in which to present arguments in favor of your edits. Believing that you are right is not an excuse for edit-warring. You were fortunate not to have been blocked after the initial report, and it would have been best if you have taken that to heart. Edit-warring to try to argue content at AN3 and casting aspersions at other editors is not acceptable. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to below: you are expected to gain consensus at the relevant article talkpage for your edits. Edit-warring is not a substitute for consensus. The appropriate action after the article in which you were edit-warring was protected was to proceed to the article talkpage and present a reasonable discussion of your edits for review by others. The matter at AN3 is closed, and your attempts to justify your conduct at AN3 by edit-warring a content argument into the noticeboard were disruptive. Since you ignored multiple editors, you're blocked. Please reconsider your behavior, since that is what got you blocked. AN3 is not concerned with content, it deals with behavioral problems. Block evasion to continue your edit-warring and disruption of the noticeboard is another behavioral problem that may cause your block to be extended if it recurs. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dael4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

jimbo_wales I am trying to defend myself when others, including User:Acroterion, deleted my posts? When am I allowed to post my defense? This is an intractable gang policy when others block your post and I, the victim in self defense, has no recourse? and the numbers win? That is undemocratic. The rule of the hoard does not make me wrong. Dael4 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't a democracy (though, if it were, the numbers would win, because... well, because that's how democracy works). You are allowed to post in your defense, right here. But you didn't; this unblock request fails to address the reasons for your block or for your block evasion. Note that any further block evasion may result in your ban, rather than just your current 48 hour block. Yamla (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

All was doing was posting my defense when I got piled on. Nevermor27 left a comment and I cannot? you call this fair sir? talk Dael4 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the current discussion. I've been on the receiving end of these edit wars, not the instigating side. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^ I went to where nevermore27 published this and responded quite eloquently and now I am evading? Nevermore27 post is still there. What do I get? − Dael4 Chimes in this is what I posted underneath:

Can I suggest we go beyond war and "consensus" and consider changes be made to a replete coverage of candidates that is inclusive? Essentially, I was being censored. The whole issue is that folks seem to persist in allowing only the two major candidate images to be displayed. As to power~enwiki being a broker here's my take.

Comment the simplest solution is to not have any infobox at all until after the election; it will be easy to only include those candidates who personally received >5% of the vote at that time. Beyond that; the public polling, political analysis, and results of previous elections suggest that DeWine and Cordray are the only candidates likely to receive even 5% of the vote, much less have a chance at winning. While there's a philosophical argument that all candidates in pending elections should be treated equally, that is not currently Wikipedia policy, and without a wider consensus should not be enforced as policy here. If we were to do that, all candidates should be listed, including Libertarian Travis Irvine, and Independent Collin Hill [2] [3]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
What is wikipedia current policy? power~enwiki? I am thinking of inclusiveness as one of them. Why shouldn't it be a current policy here? It is not consensus that should rule, that is too simplistic. Inclusiveness should also be considered for fuller coverage. It almost sounds like including third or independent parties as something that shouldn't happen? This, as an encyclopedia, should have all of the situation of the elections in Ohio. I have noticed some who have colluded to purposely deny ANY third party access on other Wiki pages. If you look you will find it. It is happening as we speak. To me it is deeply disturbing and should be to every wikipedian. bradv quoted me that wikipedia is not a democracy but I keep getting quoted info about polls as a basis for publishing. Democracy as in hearing people out is what's important. Publish the facts. So and so is running. Good! There are 5 candidates in Ohio. With only two pictures of them seems as though someone is playing favorites. Not a Democracy?, then no polls should be cited as an inclusive principle. Either way the poll argument is a fail, in that full information on THE candidates is not available. Dael4 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
user:dael4Answering/questioning User:power-enwiki And why wouldn't all candidates be treated equally? where is that rule?

I have requested comments for RFC on this matter.

Dael4 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Dael4 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dael4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would check out anyone who is not familiar with this case Its all piling on as usual. Every other person whom are not familiar/involved user:Yamla user:black_kite user:acroterion not reading the information as I have compiled it. I have been defending myself all along and now I get called out for evading? Hilarious. Get a grip yo. I was told to go to [WP:ANEW] The gods are laughing. "It's probably best to just keep this discussion together at WP:ANEW, instead of rehashing it on this page as well. Unless you have a specific question that you need help with? Bradv 02:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)"Dael4 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what that is, but it isn't an unblock request. To prevent any further time wasting, I have revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. I'm sure you think you are the only one who is correct and everyone else is wrong, but that's not any way to get unblocked. The next reviewing admin can feel free to reinstate your talk page access or alternatively, extend your block as they see fit. --Yamla (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We"

Here's a question you can deal with after your block lifts. In this edit, you write:

. . .we request that Constance Gadell-Newton's Photo and info box data be put back in place and also Ohio Libertarian Gov. candidate, Travis Irvine be placed/inserted there.

Your use of "we" surprises me. Are there two or more people using this one user ID, or are you editing on behalf of a group or organization? -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]